Time, Page 2

The Reality of Time

So we have two particular views that we have discussed thus far. The idea that time is non-existant and that it is relative to each individual, whether it be person or species. And the idea that time and natural law are symmetric in nature.

So if we take into account the idea that time is non-existant and the idea that physical processes are 'time' symmetric as opposed to the way we normally see it ('time' asymmetric) then we do two things. We eliminate the magnitude of time and eliminate the direction of time. Magnitude and direction of time only have meaning for us because we see things through human eyes. In life outside the human world, neither exist. So what does that do to our arrows of time?

There is nothing wrong with we as humans giving definition and meaning to certain key events. The process where the earth does a complete 360 degree spin is called a day. Refering to these measurements helps is in our every day lives. It helps as plan things. It helps us make sure we don't miss appointments. To us, time definitly exists. You can say to a person, "Come back and see me when the sun does 3 complete revolutions." or you could give meaning to that and say "Come back in 3 days." This measurement of time only has meaning to us. We look at the world though human eyes. So you can expect the rest of the universe to not give a dam either way. Or in other words, don't be so suprised if time as we know it is non-existant outside of our simplistic world.

So basically, the world works like this. The past influences the future, because physics allows it to be so. The future also influences the past, because this too is allowable by physics. We don't have to look far to see evidence of where the future influences the past, or at least, where we can infer that the future influences the past in some way. Anyone there ever had De'ja vu?

De'ja vu is quite an unusual phenomenon experienced by a lot of people. Basically it is where events happen and at that point, you get the sensation or a vision that it has happened before. Another similar event is where a person has a dream about some future event and that event becomes true. I understand there are a lot of sceptics about these sorts of occurances, but looking at time, or more specifically, physical processes, in a symmetric fashion clearly predicts this sort of behavior. Our memories from the past effect our future. We carry these memories on. In that same way, our memories from the future will have some sort of influence on us in the past.

The problem is we are accustomed to seeing things asymetrically. Whether it is because of some law like probability or if it is because our brains can only cope with one time direction, we see a glass falling off a table and smashing, not a million fragments of matter forming into a glass and bouncing up on the table. This would be another reason why we can't remember things from the future. I think you need to be tuned into it to be able to recognise it. And I think that idea explains people like Nostradamus and his visionary abilites. He was simply more tuned into this symmetric world than the rest of us. To that same extent, some of his predications failed to come true because the past has influence on the future.

Determinism and Randomness

Knowing that the past can change the future and the future can change the past makes this world a truely crazy place. Which are we to assume, is the world random or deterministic?

My sister argued with me the idea that because chaos can be modeled by mathematical equations, then nothing is random. Everything is in fact deterministic. This is quite correct in my view. To an extent at least. Randomness still exists and the more random a system, the more harder it is to model with equations. The whole concept of 'initial conditions' is something that is covered by Chaos theory. Basically it goes like this. A small change in initial conditions will bring about a large change in it's final state. For example, take the weather for example: in theory, you can exhale a large breathe. The air from this breathe has a domino effect on the air in the atmosphere. Particles collide and these particles then collide with others and so on and so on. This small change in the normal flow of the air can, in theory, if started in Australia, bring about a tornado in America. This is what is known as the butterfly effect.

Now, what my sister said about the world being largely deterministic is true. There are two problems though, that I think need to be pointed out. The first one is in this idea of initial conditions. Randomness comes into the picture when we talk about this small change in initial conditions. There is no law that will model randomness. This change in initial conditions assumes that we have a basis initial condition with which to measure the change. You can give an equation to the optimum initial condition, but you can't model the change. Once the change has occured though, you can adjust your equations, but like I said, this random change can't be modeled. The most tiniest change in initial conditions will bring about a rather stellar outcome, maybe even totally opposite to how you'd planned it.

Or to put it another way, you can have an optimum image of what a dynamical system is supposed to look like. For example, your optimum universe might be one that doesn't continually expand or collapse, one that is filled entirely with matter with little fluctuation in say, temperature and matter distribution. You can't model the random change in the initial condition. You can model the universe if it turns out to be different, but you can't model how the initial conditions will change. The universe would still be deterministic according to natural law, but the state of it's initial conditions would be purely random. From this random state you'll get a deterministic world.

The other problem I can see with this (and I'd hope at this stage that you would too) is the problem of time symmetry. The statement that "a small change initial conditions brings about a large change in its final state" with regards to examples I described above (like the butterfly effect) suggests a largly time asymmetric process. If initial conditions in (what we call) the past, brings about large changes in (what we call) the future, then according to statistical approaches (chaos theory is largly statistical), a small change in (what we call) the future, should bring about a large change in (what we call) the past. This goes on to what is sometimes known as the Gold Universe, where at some point in the future, we under go a big crunch (time reverses in other words). This is beyond the scope of this essay for the moment. But I just wanted to point out that if the distant future relies on the distant past then in some ways, things are deterministic, and in some ways, due to change in initial conditions, things are random. It is almost like a chicken and then egg paradox. If a change in the initial conditions in the past brings about a large difference in the future, then the future will be different in terms of initial conditions, amplifying his fact on the past. Like I said, it's crazy (please note that what is discussed above isn't intended to have any effect on the essay as it stands, I just mentioned it out of interest. I'm discussing time, not the concept of randomness vs determinism).

The World With Symmetry

I think an example of how the world will look without any particular time direction or magnititude is in order. The best example I can think of is advanced and retarted waves. Maxwell's solutions to the equations regarding radiation came in the form of these retarded and advanced waves. Retarded waves are the normal waves we are used to. Think of a source of light. It pulses for a fraction of a second. The wave then spreads outwards away from the source in all directions towards the future. An advanced wave is the temporal inverse of this.

Again, the mathematics is time symmetric, but we generally only see retarded waves in every day life. Whether it is due to boundry conditions or probability is beside the point. I would like to share with you something I wrote to a Mr Huw Price, author of "Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point", and proffessor of philosophy at a university in sydney.

Dear Mr Price

I vaguely remember reading in the book, "The Mathematics of Special Relativity" by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler (note the word "vaguely") that something travelling between 2 points A and B can look as if it travels from A to B or from B to A depending on ones reference frame (and what they are doing I'd imagine). I then recalled a definition of space-time that I heard somewhere, that space and time are interwoven to give the fabric known as space time. Applying the special relativity concept above to different points in time, this time (because of the interwoven nature of space-time...I hope this is right) I deduced that, in trying to stick to your atemporal views, a wave would look either to be advanced or retarded depending on your point of view. You couldn't argue that something travelling from A to B (spacially) for one observer but from B to A for another observer is 2 different things. They're the same object. In light of this view, could it be shown that a wave travelling from A to B in time for one observer (from source to absorber), but from B to A in time for another observer (absorber(s) to source) is the same wave, in spite of the different terms used for the apparent propagation of the wave? (Chances are I also need to take into account the physical aspects of the wave in that both waves are centered around the source, not both source and absorber).

And his response...

Dear Hath

The analogy with spacetime diagrams with worldlines is quite correct, in my view. As for the point in parentheses at the end, it is interesting to note that there are some cases in which there is complete symmetry in this resepct, too -- e.g. if the emitter and absorber are the same particle, at the centre of a spherical mirror.

So in other words, the difference between an advanced wave and a retarded wave is a matter of linguistics. We give meaning to two different things which are really the same thing. The Wheeler Feynman Absorver theory treated the same wave as two separate objects as well. It is like hearing the word for an apple in english then hearing the word for an apple in spanish and not knowing what is meant, and thinking they are two different things.

This is the basis of the transactional interpretation I talked about in the Universe article. The wave still propagates in terms of probability. Probability however does not mean that the future or the past is solid concrete. It is simply the chances of something happening. Until an event has completely passed is it solidified in the past. Interactions between a source in the present and absorbers in the future are still subject to change.

This is another very big problem that we experience. Because we look at the world through human eyes, we give our observations human meaning. If we interpret something the wrong way, then the same apple will apear as two different objects. Our wave that propagates away from a source into the future is the same wave converging on a source into the past. They are the same thing, yet we give them different names.

Real life examples of where the future effects the past exist. I remember reading this in a magazine, but I'm having trouble finding it. I know it's somewhere in the house. Before the brain sends a message to any part of the body, it prepares itself. It makes this type of chemical. So like before you go to move your hand, before you even know you want to move your hand, your brain has prepared itself with this chemical. Once it has done this, it sends off it's signal and you move your hand. The thing is, the scientists even found this to be the case with a subjects reaction. A subject would react to something unknown before hand and it was still found that this chemical was produced, even withouth the subjects knowledge of the test. So in other words, the brain somehow knows what is going to happen before it actually does. Even though it is a small fraction of a second, it is still significant enough to be taken note of.

Conclusion

Looking at time in this symmetric sense can solve a lot of problems in physics. The chances are, I need to go back to my universe article and change a few aspects of it, because I'd imagine that a lot of it doesn't follow this time symmetric rule. I never took that into account to begin with because it was hard enough coming up with what I already got. As far as I see it though, the universe I came up with could quite possibly return to it's former state, given the fact that an electron in an atom can jump up or down in energy levels given the right amount of energy. But again, that is another article, possibly a future one? If I have time (pun intended).

Like the previous two articles thus far, the world looks different from out of space than it does from under water. The same concept holds true in this case. It is hard looking at the world in ways other than what we are used to. It is equally as hard believing in them when our perception tells us other wise. It doesn't hurt to look outside the square we live in....don't forget your square will still be there if you get to scared by what you find.