Christmas Time

You may wonder what Christmas has to do with time in this blog. 

There are two connections. Firstly. to all occasional visitors of my blog I wish a very happy Christmas and a happy New Year.

Secondly, Christmas bring Santa to our attention. Santa and Time have one thing in common: 

Everyone believes in Santa and Time at some stage of life. The second delusion however, may persist throughout the entire lifetime :)

Now, I will have more time to think so I may add a post or two with some more meaningful content. But I do not have too much time :) as my work will also require to solve some pressing issues.

Follow me on Academia.edu 
Follow me on ResearchGate

There Is No Such Thing as "Now" - So They Say...

There is hardly any more obvious experience than the awareness of "Now". It is with you all day and often even while you sleep. "Now" is more like one snapshot of the movie at a time - visually. When it comes to thoughts and sounds it is not immediately clear. There is no such thing like instantaneous sound as there is an instantaneous image. You need at least one period of oscillations to say there is a sound. This is quite mysterious but this is not that kind of problem discussed in physics.

Follow me on Academia.edu 
Follow me on ResearchGate

The concept of "now" we have we project to all visible space. Looking at the Moon we could say it is there now but it is not exactly there. It is by one second further away from the currently viewed position. And who knows where are those stars now that are said to be located millions light years away. We do not have problem with that. There is always some transport delay. But after year 1905, some scientists boldly claim there is no such thing as universal "Now" merely because we do not know any signal that instantaneously propagates everywhere. The fastest known speed is the speed of light.
Common sense embraces the concept of “Now” which has the universal meaning for most people around the globe and in principle it means state of permanent simultaneity of all changes of states of coexisting physical objects. With the arrival of relativity and after declaring simultaneity as relative the common concept has been questioned as something that has no place in reality. Probably the most decisive statement has been made by Arthur Eddington:

 Suppose that you are in love with a lady on Neptune and that she returns the sentiment. It will be some consolation for the melancholy separation if you can say to yourself at some—possibly pre-arranged—moment, “She is thinking of me now”. Unfortunately a difficulty has arisen because we have had to abolish Now. There is no absolute Now, but only the various relative Nows differing according to the reckoning of different observers and covering the whole neutral wedge which at the distance of Neptune is about eight hours thick. She will have to think of you continuously for eight hours on end in order to circumvent the ambiguity of “Now”.

There are some objections which may be raised to the above:

1. What is the relevance of relativity when two distant observers are not in relative motion?
2. Does the relativity theory demonstrate mathematically irrelevance of “Now”?

The answer to those questions is negative as it will be shown below. Einstein’s position on abolished “Now” was not that enthusiastic and obvious as for Eddington. This is reflected by records of his conversation with Rudolf Carnap who wrote:

Once Einstein said that the problem of the Now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics. That this experience cannot be grasped by science seemed to him a matter of painful but inevitable resignation.

The problem worrying Einstein was the incompatibility of physical and psychological aspects of time and related phenomena. I am worried whether alleged incompatible physical aspects of time are real or just misconceptions.

Where is “Now”?

From my philosophical point of view, “Now” is an instance of existence. One has to have the concept of instance as well as that of existence. This is not straightforward and difficult but not impossible to bind such definition directly to the Special Theory of Relativity (STR). We need to find a simpler way.

Following Einstein’s seminal 1905 paper we find important clues.

If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events.

This is sufficient to define local time in arbitrary locations but insufficient for physical purposes if one wants to compare or order occurrence of events at distant locations. For this Einstein states:

But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.

Later on Einstein defines distant clocks synchronization method and concludes:

Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,” or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.

After all elaborated explanations he comes to a conclusion which is what we already know:

We have one reference clock (say at the origin of a coordinate system in   physical space) of which indications are representative to any point in space given distant clocks are properly synchronised. 

Without much of philosophy here any instance of the clocks determines definite now anywhere in the universe. So “Now” is clearly omnipresent. What is then the reason for concern? Nothing new that we have not been aware already.

The STR categorically insists: any inertial observer can consider himself stationary and has the common time determined by a reference clock. 

If this is the case, to trigger simultaneous process at distant location requires no clock synchronisation but a simple operation with light beams as illustrated on this diagram

First establish distance d to a location (Neptune) and set up a process that can be triggered by an arrival of the laser ray. Compute time to destination as d/c. Set a clock to –d/c while sending laser pulse to destination d. At time t=0 start a process at origin 0. At the same time laser pulse arrives at d (Neptune) and starts the twin process and both continue synchronously. 

To verify synchronicity, the distant process may send a laser pulse back after two cycles which should arrive at origin precisely after two cycles This way the lady on Neptune may drink champagne at cycle 2 together with the observer at 0 to celebrate successful distant simultaneity experiment.

If that is not enough, imagine a laser at equal distance from 0 and d which sends simultaneously two beams in th opposite direction. This can trigger simultaneous celebration too. Pre-relativity physics would object to such scenario due to concerns that we do not know the speed of the system with respect to ether, but no such thing like ether or a common medium for EM waves seems to exist hence 

“Now” is everywhere, alive and well for a stationary system.

Common Sense and Time

                                                              

Common Sense Island[1] 

Before I tackle the difficult task of explaining the nature of the Twin Paradox as promised in the previous post, I need to touch the problem of the common sense in science and everyday life.

For ordinary people, common sense is a good thing. This is our survival guide, our tool to get out of tricky situations. But this opinion is not shared by all, in particular by a part of scientific community.

The connection of time and the common sense is very important. We cannot have concept of time in conflict with our common sense. We either abandon science in its favour, or we turn the common sense off, or we can try to find out whether the two can be reconciled.

Before year 1905 despite continuous philosophical debates about the nature of time, general pubic had no sense of contradiction of the common sense temporal logic and real life. Newtonian physics has put time in the central position and has not added anything contradicting. The real problem with time and the common sense started after electromagnetic waves were discovered and mathematically described in the form of Maxwell Equations.
In year 1905 Einstein has published his article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” . The world has changed ever since. The relativity theory took physics by storm. The outcome of the theory was of no immediate consequences to everyday life of ordinary people, but because it has changed the fundamental and common concept of time, the public at large got heavily engaged right from the beginning. In one of his letter Einstein bitterly remarks:

This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation .

One of the main reasons for public debates was the challenge to the common sense. What is so disturbing in relativity that the common sense cannot handle?

Firstly it was enough to some people to be told that time flow depends on motion such that if one of twin brothers goes for a trip at sub-luminal speeds then returns, he will be younger than the stationary twin. This by itself is not illogical if the motion could slow down his metabolism. Yes, it is surprising but not unthinkable. Far more important consequences are that two distant events simultaneous for one twin, cannot to be simultaneous for the other. So coexisting twins while in motion live in somewhat different time realities – the realities that common sense cannot comprehend. It cannot also accept the thesis that there is no such thing as universal “Now”.

 And finally it appears that time travel is a possibility not ruled out by General Theory of Relativity. Genius mathematician Kurt Goedel came up with a specific solution of equations of General Relativity:

[…] by making a round trip on a rocket ship in a sufficiently wide curve, it is possible in these worlds to travel into any region of the past, present, and future, and back again, exactly as it is possible in other worlds to travel to distant parts of space. 

So, what did Einstein think about common sense while recognising these kind of outcomes of his work? He is believed to have said:

Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.

As we have see  has shown very little respect to the common sense which is treasured by the majority. Other scientists have followed suit. As pointed out by science writer John Horgan  :

many scientists came to see common sense as an impediment to progress not only in physics but also in other fields. […] the British biologist Lewis Wolpert declared in his influential 1992 book "The Unnatural Nature of Science," "I would almost contend that if something fits in with common sense it almost certainly isn't science." Dr. Wolpert's view is widely shared.

Such position is proliferating to all levels such that people taking part in online discussion forums may say something like that:

"Common sense" is precisely the thing that people use to refute science. Science is exactly the opposite of common sense. "Common sense" is simply the self-fulfilment of what you think you already know. 

But here is the twist: There is a famous Einstein’s quote: “God does not play dice”.

Following this lead we discover his letter to physicist Max Born where he writes:

You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world that objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. … Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one.
[Letter to Max Born (7 Sep 1944). In Born-Einstein Letters, 146. Einstein Archives 8-207] 

This is an example of a strong non-scientific based statement tied to the belief system - the reasoning that sadly on this occasion seems to have failed in support to his own opinion about common sense which he was trying to apply. The quantum theory contrary to his predictions evolved with unparalleled success with randomness in the centre of it. But is the quantum theory the last word in science? The future will show.

There is however another example of Einstein’s reasoning which shows the bright side of the common sense.

In his Autobiographical Notes  he describes his thoughts when he was sixteen showing strong common-sense based beliefs:

If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell’s equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the stand-point of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?

This is the common sense in its pure form that gave birth to his famous theory, but this seems also true that it is based on prejudices laid down by the mind before he has reached eighteen.

In startling contrast is the description of common sense by Thomas Huxley:

Science is, I believe, nothing but trained and organised common sense, differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit. 

From the above I understand that one can make statement about common sense depending on one’s definition of it. In my opinion Einstein defines belief system not the common sense while Huxley gets its real essence.  What it seems is that common sense is nothing else but logical thinking based on available facts. If you have right facts you cannot make a mistake. But what is when the facts are not so certain or incomplete. Can science and logic alone help to find right answers?

Both, science and common sense may fail in such circumstances. Science can admit insufficient data or it may cover up (temporarily) the deficiency and come up with pseudo solutions as it has done it many times in the past.

Relatively less publicly known but frequently discussed in philosophy of science is the example of so called Phlogiston Theory (PT). In the seventeenth century before discovery and understanding of chemical reactions with oxygen, it was postulated that there existed a fire-like element called phlogiston, which was contained in combustible matter and released during combustion. The theory could explain why some substances burn more eagerly than others. The problem has emerged after it has been discovered that the weight of the ashes of a burned metal such as magnesium is more than that of the metal alone before burning. The common sense then would indicate that the theory was wrong, but the scientific solution of the paradox put forward by proponents of the PT tried to overrule the common sense by adding a conjecture that the phlogiston has negative weight. Why not? We know today this is the oxygen combining with other substances causes burning and weight increase. The moral of the story is that what is now scientific and logical does not have to be true tomorrow and we have to be very cautious about it.

Common sense becomes more formalised with the advances of Artificial Intelligence theories. Base on definition given by McCarthy in the context of computer programs, I can say that:

 Common sense is the ability to deduce a sufficiently wide class of immediate consequences of anything one is told and what one already knows. 

So this is more that logical thinking. It may include all available tools of intellect such as analogy, statistics, heuristics, plus wide range of knowledge. We can now see even better that Einstein Special relativity was the product of his common sense despite his later sarcasm.

In such context I do not see how common sense can be an obstacle to understand problems resulting from the theory of relativity. I think it is a great tool if used with open mind and acceptance that it is not fully immune to illusions. Any contradiction with the theory requires reconciliation not abandonment of one of the contradicting factors.

#CommonSense

[1] Picture: Commonsense Island Courtesy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Artaxerxes

Twin Paradox Part 1 - Confusion and Embarassment

Whoever is aware of the Special Relativity developed by Albert #Einstein must have heard about the famous "Twin Paradox" ( #TwinParadox ). This is not what contemporary physicists are concerned about nowadays, but educators, general public and philosophers are still actively discussing it. Mainstream science considers it a "no-paradox" as it is believed to have been adequately explained.

For me it is a big mess that scientists would not like to get involved with. In order to begin with some discussion on the paradox, I should present what the definition of the paradox is. And that is where the mess begins...

1. Definition Inconsistency

Typing on Google "twin paradox definition" on 26/07/2014 that is 109 years after Special Relativity was born, we get thousands of pages and the following prominently displayed definition:

twin paradox - noun - PHYSICS: the apparent paradox arising from relativity theory that if one of a pair of twins makes a long journey at near the speed of light and then returns, he or she will have aged less than the twin who remains behind.

Without going into details now, please take my word for it - it's wrong because it is incomplete.

If so, then why does the main search engine on the Internet choose the wrong definition? Computer/human error perhaps. Embarrassing but errors do happen.
Asking Yahoo search engine we have no preferred definition but the usual list of relevant web pages. In the first one, from dictionary.com we get:

twin paradox - noun: a phenomenon predicted by relativity. One of a pair of identical twins is supposed to live normally in an inertial system whilst the other is accelerated to a high speed in a spaceship, travels for a long time, and finally returns to rest beside his twin. The travelled twin will be found to be younger than his brother

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollinsPublishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Not much different than the previous one. Oxford online dictionary and many others say more or less the same. Well, people who write dictionaries are not experts in physics. They likely describe what the term means to general public in which case general public is wrong, but this is not of concern to linguists. But why would it be that the public is so wrong? Where does it get the ideas from?

I have consulted an authority on physics and time who is also educating the public in his popular bestsellers: Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time "sold more than 10 million copies in twenty years [...] on the London Sunday Times best-seller list for more than four years and [..] translated into 35 languages by 2001.[1]. 
And this is what the book says about the paradox in the context of a discussion of the significant difference in age of some twins when... 

[...] one of the twins went for along trip in a spaceship at nearly the speed of light. 

When he returned, he would be much younger than the one who stayed on Earth. This is known as the twin paradox, but it is a paradox only if one has the idea of absolute time at the back of one's mind.[2]

I am not surprised now that popular "definitions" are like those shown above. Stephen Hawking presented the paradox incorrectly. He simply glossed over the most important issue that is not touched at all in the quoted paragraphs. Just differential aging alone of some initially identical objects is not paradoxical at all as it can be demonstrated by using refrigerators. No logical problem whatsoever seeing two twin plants in a different stage of their development when one has been kept in cold and the other in full sun.

I have checked Bing, Encyclopedia Britanica and Wikipedia on line resources and all appear to extract or define the paradox in a different way. In Wikipedia[3] we read:

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly.

2. Correct Definition

Britanica and Wikipedia definition shown above are the correct definitions. How do I know this?

The paradox has been famously introduced to public domain by Langevin[4] and independently analysed at length by Einstein himself [5], although he did not use twins but focused on clock indications rather than referring to human characters hence this paradox is also known as the "clock paradox".

The nature of the twin paradox is not differential aging but  the claims made in the name of Special Relativity that each of any two systems moving relative to each other may calculate that the partner is aging slower and therefore it is younger. But this is impossible for one system to be younger and older at the same moment.

Many respectable sources then spread misinformation to millions of people. This is a big problem and some might see it as a conspiracy. I see it just as as negligence. 
Dictionaries explain the  meaning of an expression as understood by the English speaking population, not scrutinising the physical accuracy. 
For the origin of Stephen Hawking's error, only he can answer. 
Frighteningly inaccurate is the reference to twin paradox by an online entry originated from New Scientist website[6] which so far I valued for it's high standards. They repeat the same Hawking's truncated - that is incorrect - explanation and refer to The Open University as the source. The very first comment at the very bottom of the comment stack highlights this a follows:

Steve Walker on January 13, 2012 4:50 PM What this doesn't cover is the paradox element. The video says that Bert will come back younger. But look at the problem from Bert's point of view. He has seen Al disappear at near light speed, so then it's *Al's* clock which runs slower. Viewed from Bert's point of view (everything's relative, remember) then Al will be younger when Bert gets back.
That's the paradox: one of them will be younger by the end of the exercise - but which one?

Two years later no one has reacted to the comment and misinformation spreads.

So before we have even started discussing the problem we find a possibly nontrivial obstacle:

Many people discussing the twin paradox or time may not have an idea what are they talking about.

To be continued...

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brief_history_of_time
[2] Hawking S., A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books London 1998
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
[4] P.Langevin, Scientia 10 31 (1911).
[5] Einstein A., Dialogue about Objections to the Theory of Relativity Die Naturwissenschaften 6(1918): p 697-702. English Translation in The collected Papers of Albert Einstein vol 7 p 66 Princeton University Press 
[6] http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2012/01/physics-in-a-minute-the-twin-paradox.html#.U9LzzHazjZg.blogger

The Perception of Time

To understand time I have to understand my own perception of it first. 

The perception of time does not start with the clock. Firstly I am aware of myself, secondly I am aware of the immediate environment, then I perceive a change through senses. The change comes to my attention by becoming aware of a difference between the current sensation and the memory of this sensation being absent or by remembering other characteristics of it (No pain then pain, or less pain, more pain). In the normal state of mind I distinguish between current and not current, so the primary perception of time is Now and the Past. There is no immediate need to realise the Future. The sense of the future comes late in brain development and according to evidence available to G.J Whitrow[1], animals do not perceive the future. Contemporary adult human has a well developed concept of Now, the Past and the Future, and can cognitively time travel back and forth. Significant part of awareness can be a-temporal, such as a mental process elaborating some logical problems related to coexisting concepts, for example while performing an arithmetical operation in memory.

Apart from the ability of remembering facts and things, human memory is also capable of recording the order of events. Events are sensed changes of state in memory believed to be the representation of some real world changes of a state. The necessary ingredients in the perception of time are:

1. A perceiving process in human brain or in a computer.
2. State memory being continuously updated from sensor sources by the perceiving process.
3. Algorithms ordering and retrieving information from sensors and long term memory.
4. Ability to see different states in memory and ordering them  successively as they appear.

Ingredients 1-3 are natural properties of human mind or a computer system, ingredient 4 is the ability which equates to an elementary perception of time in terms of "before" and "after". The ordering and memory allow counting reoccurring events which can be a measure of duration, which is one of the faces of time.  Apart from immediate real time sensation of events appearing in order, the stored information allows off-line reasoning about the order of events and hence about the passage of time.
What it has been said above is nothing new. Aristotle in his Physics[2]  (350 BC) says:

• But neither does time exist without change; for when the state of our own minds does not change at all, or we have not noticed its changing, we do not realize that time has elapsed [...] On the other hand, when we do perceive a ‘before’ and an ‘after’, then we say that there is time. For time is just this — number of motion in respect of ‘before’ and ‘after’.

Physically significant are events pertaining to physical objects coming to existence or becoming present in my field of observation. A glass mirror broken brings to existence a number of irregular pieces and such sequence perceived by me is a physically significant and unique change that can be said to occur in time in a particular order. The memory of the real change is retained even if some subsequent process disintegrates glass pieces into dust. We should examine later if such apparently unique order can be linked to the concept of time used in theory of relativity, and would it be relative to any observer to a degree that it can even be reversed.

At this point I conclude that my innate perception of time gives me the capability of ordering events in terms of "before" and "after" as well as enables primitive measure of duration by counting reoccurring events recorded in memory. In that context it appears that those two capabilities can be related to time defined either by Newton or the theory of relativity and there is nothing subjective or mystical in those capabilities. There is limited precision problem but it can be eliminated with adequate choice of time scales used in experiments with reality. Therefore I believe that this common sense perception of time can be validly used in reasoning in the context of relativity and time reversal discussions.

Having said that I immediately recall inspirational thoughts on time written by Ernst Mach in 1883 in his book "The Science of Mechanics"[3]

• When we say a thing A changes with the time, we mean simply that the conditions that determine a thing A depend on the conditions that determine another thing B, The vibrations of a pendulum take place in time when its excursion depends on the position of the earth. Since, however, in the observation of the pendulum, we are not under the necessity of taking into account its dependence on the position of the earth, but may compare it with any other thing (the conditions of which of course also depend on the position of the earth), the illusory notion easily arises that all the things with which we compare it are unessential. Nay, we may, in attending to the motion of a pendulum, neglect entirely other external things, and find that for every position of it our thoughts and sensations are different. 
• Time, accordingly, appears to be some particular and independent thing, on the progress of which the position of the pendulum depends, while the things that we resort to for comparison and choose at random appear to play a wholly collateral part. But we must not forget that all things in the world are connected with one another and depend on one another, and that we ourselves and all our thoughts are also a part of the nature. It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which we arrive by means of the changes of things ; made because we are not restricted to any one definite measure, all being interconnected.[...]
• We arrive at the idea of time, — to express it briefly and popularly, — by the connection of that which contained in the province of our memory with that which is contained in the province of our sense-perception. When we say that time flows on in a definite direction or sense, we mean that physical events generally (and therefore also physiological events) take place only in a definite sense.

[1]Whitrow G.G, Time In HistoryOxford University Press 1989
[2]Aristotle, Physics, Grece 350 BC
[3]Mach E. The Science of Mechanics Chicago The Open Court Publishing Company London 1901
     http://ia600406.us.archive.org/35/items/sciencemechanic00machgoog/sciencemechanic00machgoog.pdf

Why Am I Writing This...

While looking into the sky I have two kinds of reflections. One is the awareness of the enormous size and complexity of the universe, the other is quite the opposite. The feeling of knowing it all at once, the sense of togetherness that permeates all boundaries. Even the most sophisticated theory of the universe has to create a simple picture of it  that holds together in my mind. It all has to be expressible by common language in a logical manner no matter how abstract mathematical ideas hide behind the full explanation of the physical phenomena. Surely the elements of simple explanation have to be accepted by faith in underlying mathematical content. 

The reason for starting this blog was to explore the role of the common sense and logic in understanding the world around us. Modern science generally provides excellent description of reality and we see the effect of it every day. There are a few areas where science becomes controversial and one of those areas is Time.

As previously mentioned, there are claims resulting from Einstein theories which allow time travel. Relativity of time leads to paradoxes which are hard to explain. General picture emerges according to Einstein and his followers that: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"[1]. This is only because the properties of time after Einstein defy the common sense, while experimental evidence confirms predictions of Relativity Theory.

The common sense appears to be so bad when it comes to time that science educators invest serious resources do develop new methods to retrain the brains in order to fix innate human temporal logic to accept relativity of simultaneity. Scherr, Shaffer, and Vokos[2] report serious cognitive problems among students learning relativity - problems of a kind unheard of in other areas of science: 

"Excerpts from taped interviews and classroom interactions help illustrate the intense cognitive conflict that students encounter as they are led to confront the incompatibility of their deeply held beliefs about simultaneity with the results of special relativity".

Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate [4]

Common sense reasoning is not much different than strict scientific reasoning. The difference lies in the level of knowledge, precision of available data. The rules of logic are the same. No statement about reality from the common sense perspective should contradict scientific view of the same unless the knowledge of fact is incomplete or incorrect or reasoning is simply flawed by human error. Common sense so criticised after Einstein is in fact the very foundation of relativity. One of the important rationale behind  was an assumption that the laws of physics should at least be the same on two systems moving relatively with constant speed. That is the main postulate of Relativity Theory as presented by Einstein[5]: 

"If,relative to K, K1 is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K1 according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. This statement is called the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense)"

Common sense reasoning about time comes from direct experience. If somebody claims common sense reasoning about time is wrong, then there should be scientific proof to show where the error is.

After conducting my own study, the preliminary results presented there [3] let me to believe that the common sense in its temporal aspect is not bad at all. It appears there is a serious failure in scientific approach to understand the properties of time defined and used in Relativity Theory in the context of time perception in humans. As much as there is no need to question the Theory of Relativity, there is a reason to question interpretation of time as defined by Einstein in relation to time perceived by us and the temporal logic we use. Hopefully in the subsequent posts it will become clear that we do not need to re-train our brains to absorb new temporal logic as the one we posses is still adequate.

[1] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins125365.html#vr9WBSUQjpT0ohmr.99

[2] http://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Vokos-Simultaneity.pdf

[3] A Study on Invariance of Temporal_Coincidence

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
[5]A.Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1916)

Many Faces of Time

Time has many different faces. One word, multiple meanings. Merriam-Webster on line dictionary[1] describes above 20 different flavours of the word "time". The most popular understanding is: "the thing that is measured as seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc" which is more like Newton's measure of duration.

A different use of word time is to express multiplicity of occurrences.You can do things once, twice, but not trice. It has to be three times. Not all languages have this association of time and multiplicity. In Slavic languages the word "raz" means more or less a unity and it is used in combination with a number from 2 onwards. It looks like it was once more obvious for some ancestors to associate multiplicity with repetition of events occurring in time rather then with a number of objects of the same kind.

My particular interest in time is: "The continued progress of existence as affecting people and things"[2]. This goes beyond a simple measure. This is the space for events to happen and the mode of our existence in which we also perceive existence of things other than ourselves, unless this is all one big illusion.

For a physicist time is a variable t and numbers that can be assigned to it. Experimentally, that would correspond to some clock indication as per Einstein's definition. It is interesting, how does then t relate to the progress of existence?

Finally time despite its operational definition given by Einstein is postulated to exist beyond clocks in the form of space-time continuum. So in my view then clocks as devices must be affected by the flow of local time. I do not like the concept of flow of time, in particular time that is a driving force of the clock, in the same way I would not like to say that inertial motion can sustain only due to a force.

The progress of existence like life of everyone of us appears to be in one direction only while other things progress in repetitive cycles such as grandfather's mechanical watch or a toy train on closed loop tracks. This is of course a simplistic view as none of the cycles can be exactly the same. There is always at least a tiny disturbance that makes each cycle different from the previous one. 

The irreversibility of physical processes made British astronomer Arthur Eddington creating the concept of "the arrow of time"[3]. The term is now widely used. Why time has to have an arrow or a direction? 

This is a convention by which we allow clocks to increase the number of second minutes etc. in an increasing order. We could equally build the clocks that count down rather than up and the world would not be any different. There is nothing unique about that. The direction is arbitrary yet some believe it may change.

If one recalls Newton's definition of time, it flows (where?,when?)  and the flow has to have a direction. 

The question is, where is time? Is that direction the same everywhere? Is it changing with distance,speed,gravity?  Arrows shot from the bow generally don't change direction but they could turn around with gusts of wind. Can time do the same?

I am highly skeptical about the time arrow concept because time that is poorly defined in science appears to be made responsible for the direction of physical processes while each process generally is directed due to initial conditions and continues in a direction due to some form of force or inertia.

The questions whether time travel is possible and whether spontaneous processes can revert their direction is not yet answered by science although such claims are frequently made.  At least that gives us some space for discussions.

[1]"Time." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 6 July 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time

[2]"Time." www.oxforddictionaries.com. 6 July 2014.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/time

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

Does Time Exist?

 

This is a multi-billion dollar question. How can it not exist if there is a name for it?

Salvador Dali

OK, so ghosts, tooth fairies, Santa Claus exist too.

The tooth fairy, as drawn by a five-year-old girl from Illinois.

Now my favourite traffic analogy: Traffic does exist but we cannot put our hand on it. If we do we are hit by a car not by a traffic.
The idea that time may not be an existing entity is not new. Before 55 BC Lucretius in his work De Rerum Natura [1] wrote:

• "...time exists not of itself; but sense reads out of things what happened long ago,what presses now, and what shall follow after:No man, we must admit, feels time itself, disjoined from motion and repose of things".

I tend to think that the most important thing in making the concept of existence less ambiguous is to assign the existence an attribute that is a degree of independence. People exist independently because you can select an individual and isolate him/her from all the others. Love also exists but not without people in love. So when we want to answer the question whether time exists, we have to agree on a definition and then assess the level of independence from other entities based on this definition. The problem is, there are many definitions. The most relevant to science which I am mostly concerned with will be definitions given by Newton and Einstein.

Newton [2]:

• Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe, that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common.
• Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.

Newton clearly emphasises independence of mathematical time as an essential attribute of it's existence.
How did he manage to see time flowing? Answer: It is a definition so it cannot be questioned unless it leads to contradictions.
Einstein's Definition of time [3]:

• Strictly speaking, it would be more correct to define simultaneity first,somewhat as follows: two events taking place at the points A and B of the system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. 
• Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously.

The difference between two definitions is striking. Einstein's time is the concept entirely dependent on clocks capable of indicating it. Exactly like love is dependent on people, but far less romantic...

To determine whether time exists we have a difficult choice. We either accept Newton's definition which has been discredited by the official science, or the one given by Einstein, which is currently approved by consensus. Such defined time has no independent existence though - just like traffic and love.
The choice is yours :)

[1] Lucretetius T., De Rerum Natura, Book 1 http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/785/pg785.txt
[2] Scholium to the Definitions in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Bk. 1 (1689); trans. Andrew Motte (1729), rev. Florian Cajori, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934. pp. 6-12. as published in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html
[3] A. Einstein,  "The Meaning of Relativity" Four lectures delivered at Princeton University, May, 1921, PRINCETON
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 1923 as published in http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36276/36276-pdf.pdf

Simultaneous or Not ...

The most puzzling issues that have emerged after Einstein's Special Relativity Theory (SRT) are 

• Speed affects time of the object in motion
• Simultaneous events for one observer are not simultaneous for the observer that is in motion relatively to the first one.

Speed affecting time i.e. the age of an object is not logically incomprehensible as we can see on example of two identical plants one in the sunlight, and another one in a refrigerator. Under different physical conditions their biological age will be different after a while.

The second issue defies common sense (whatever that is) as two things happening at once at distant locations from the point of view of observer 1 can happen in succession for the observer 2. Such possibility is called the relativity of simultaneity.

I have analysed this problem and published results in a draft article "A Study on Invariance of Temporal Coincidence". The conclusion is that relative simultaneity is only an apparent effect of a particular clock synchronisation required by the framework of the STR. 

Follow me on Academia.edu, Follow me on ResearchGate

In rough terms this is a similar situation when simultaneous distant events: one in Time Square in NY and one in Times Square Sunnybank, Brisbane Australia are identified by their local clocks. Because there is different time recorded from the clocks in each place it does not mean events are not simultaneous as the clocks have been synchronised according to respective time zones.