[time 58] Re: your "Is there a better way than renormalization?" post

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:06:57 -0500

Dear Doug,

        I hope you don't mind that I am forwarding this to our Time list.

Doug Sweetser wrote:
> Hello Stephen:
> I sponsored a contest in spr 3 years ago to come up with a favorite
> definition of time. As I thought about the issue, I came to the
> conclusion that it was meaningless to try. Fortunately, a definition of
> spacetime is viable, and I have persuaded the same one since (even if my
> definition was a run-on sentence :-) I have included the result of that
> contest at the end.
> I am very operational: my goal is to rebuilt standard equations in
> physics starting from the same clay. My first line of success was to be
> able to solve problems in special relativity. My second was with the
> Maxwell equations, some of the consequences I am only now starting to
> understand (such as gauge symmetry). I must go out and bag general
> relativity. Not an easy one :-)

        Umm, it may be necessary to start from "scratch" on the math... But, on
the other hand I have several friends that are seriously looking into
the quaternion idea and it does appear that the "big brothers"of
quaternions, the octonions, are involved in Local System interactions...

> Since I am so operationally focused, I did not find Kitada's papers very
> engaging. Some parts struck me as inaccurate. Schrodinger first wrote
> down a relativistic wave equation, but it did not agree with the data
> from the non-relativistic hydrogen atom. QM and special relativity are
> completely compatible, honest.

In Local Time theory we are dealing with a different set of initial
assumptions that the usual approach to time. That does tend to make
Hitoshi's papers difficult at first, but patience has its rewards! :) We
agree that QM and SR can be partially reconsiled (Klein-Gordon, Dirac,
QED, etc.), the real problem is with GR!
> > https://members-central.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
> Apparently I am becoming known among "outlaw"'s :-) What has been
> interesting is that I started out being much more radical, but have
> found that my work with quaternions is looking _very_ much like standard
> physics. The differences are subtle and hard to detect. Oh well.

        The same has happened to me. :) As I look over my old notes, I can see
now my thinking has matured... Any new model of physics will by
necessity be able to predict the same experimental results, what makes
it important is that it overcome the old theories shortcomings, predict
new observables and increase the level of understanding of those that
understand the theory.
> Good luck,
> doug
> http://world.com/~sweetser

        You could join our time list:

        I like this! Could I post it on my web site, with proper credit to you
of course? You could add my definition of time: "Time exists *because*
everything can not happen at once." I have several definitions on my
> A post in spr, April 1996
> Last month, I posted the following message about defining time:
> >Please e-mail me (sweetser@world.std.com) your favorite definition
> >of time. There are two constraints: it must be based on mathematics
> >or physics - not philosophy - and it must be two sentences or less.
> The most popular submission, attributed to John A. Wheeler
> (unconfirmed), was: "Time is Natures way of keeping everything from
> happening at once."
> More technical responses follow: I have two (serious) definitions of
> time. One technical, and the second in plain words, with (as much as
> possible) the same content: 1. Time is the parameter of the Tomita group
> of automorphisms of the observables algebra, generated by the
> statistical state in which the Universe around us happens to be. 2. Time
> is an illusionary side product of our ignorance of the precise state of
> the Universe: ignorance implies statistical predictions only, these
> imply increase in entropy, entropy increase gives us the illusion of
> time.
> Carlo Rovelli <rovelli+@pitt.edu>
> The observable difference between a pair of events in 4 dimensional
> spacetime defines a quaternion - a member of a skew field - whose scalar
> component is the wristwatch time difference between the events as
> measured by the observer and the vector component is the locally
> measured distances, which can also be written as the following matrix:
> | t -x -y -z |
> | x t -z y | = q(t,x,y,z)
> | y z t -x |
> | z -y x t |
> The interval between these two events is
> Interval(q) = scalar(q . q)^.5
> and for a particular q, there exists a set of quaternions {L} which
> performs an affine transformation L . q = q' to a different frame of
> reference such that
> Interval(q) = scalar(q . q)^.5 = scalar(L . q . L . q)^.5
> the set {L} serving a function similar to the Lorentz group
> in the neighborhood of the interval, for example
> L = (vector[q . q] - scalar[q . q])/norm[q]^2
> preserves the interval but L . q = q' reverses the time.
> Doug Sweetser <sweetser@world.std.com>
> Nature's monotonic count in the process of creating an objective reality
> where the interval between the ticks is dilated by curvature.
> Myke Stanbridge <mykestan@cleo.murdoch.edu.au>
> I think it is essential for quantum gravity to distinguish different
> notions of time: 1. Time measurement by clocks (GR time). 2. Time as the
> thing which defines present, future and past (QM time). The idea behind
> is that these
> different notions have not to be unified in quantum gravity, but are
> different. Ilja Schmelzer
> <schmelze@wias-berlin.de>
> t=<T>=tr((rho-adjoint)T(rho)) Prigogine,"From Being to Becoming",p.204.
> Ross Powell via
> DGedye@netlink.co.nz
> I have two definitions: Time is what prevents all things from happening
> simultaneously. Time is what separates two different events at the same
> place. Sven Nielsen <snil@daimi.aau.dk>
> The distance between two separate events occurring at the same location.
> Keith <F.MALFANTI@kcl.ac.uk>
> An editorial comment: I think it is vital that the community of
> physicists settle on a precise technical definition of time that is
> explicit instead of the implicit definitions of time found in the
> working equations of physics.
> Hope you find this interesting, Doug Sweetser <sweetser@world.std.com>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:46 JST