Deconstructing Time part 7 - Mach's Principle

Before we introduce Mach or Relativity, let's step back for a moment and recap what we've covered so far. We began with a Use Case - how do we find coordinates in space-time? This is a Use Case that could be applied to Astronomy, to GPS scenarios, to writing Science Fiction stories or movies and potentially many to other situations.  We explained how we would take an outsider's perspective using what is a essentially an IT methodology for problem solving. Then we began introducing key concepts:

1. Time is inherently connected to motion.
2. Time seems to be constructed of dynamic events.
3. Those events exist within frames of reference - those frames define the parameters for simultaneity for the events within. 
4. Motion occurs (and effects time) not just in our frames of reference but in a cascading chain of ever smaller and ever larger frames - from the subatomic to the universal scale.
5. The universe seems to be comprised of matter, energy and the space in between these elements in motion. Light is not matter but shares wave behavior with matter. Energy, such as light, can be also broken into individual particles just as matter can. 

All of this is a preface to the more complex theories and concepts we're about to explore.  We still perhaps don't understand what time is other than through the abstract event / frame paradigm that's been presented. This is a good point to ask some questions about time again:

• Is it a physical construct or a behavioral manifestation resulting from physical structures?
• Is it merely a human-perceived tool for measuring experience and the physical world around us?
• Is it an absolute, fixed constant of some sort or is it flexible? (if it is a constant is tied to other constants?)
• Lastly, if we were to view events as "time particles," can we say that time exhibits wave behavior?

The final question is interesting in that we might then be able to visualize time in a more robust sense - as spreading ripples or waves rather than straight linear progression (the metaphor Stephen Hawking used was 'Time's Arrows'). We'll come back to this later.

Ernst Mach - better know for defining the speed limit for your jet...

What is Mach's Principle? Well, it was just a handful of pages dedicated to explaining more of an observation or question rather than a theory. The principle goes something like this:

In his book The Science of Mechanics (1893), Ernst Mach put forth the idea that it did not make sense to speak of the acceleration of a mass relative to absolute space. Rather, one would do better to speak of acceleration relative to the distant stars. What this implies is that the inertia of a body here is influenced by matter far distant. A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." 

Here's another description:

Mach’s Principle assumes, among other things, that “a particle’s inertia is due to some (unfortunately unspecified) interaction of that particle with all the other masses in the universe; the local standards of nonacceleration are determined by some average of the motions of all the masses in the universe, [and] all that matters in mechanics is the relative motion of all the masses.” Furthermore, “Mach’s Principle actually implies that not only gravity but all physics should be formulated without reference to preferred inertial frames (artificially defined motion contexts).  It advocates nothing less than the total relativity of physics.  As a result, it even implies interactions between inertia and electromagnetism.”

At this point we also need to introduce another new concept - "Action at a Distance" (sometimes referred to as 'spooky action').

In physics, action at a distance is the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space. This means, potentially, that particles here on Earth could interact with other particles across the galaxy or universe without being constrained by the speed of light. This is also what drives Quantum Entanglement.

Confused yet? no worries - so is everyone else...

So, Mach's Principle effectively opened the door both to Relativity and Quantum physics. How does it relate to our discussion though? As we will see shortly, it introduced the notion of relativity to time as well as to motion. More importantly, though it begins to highlight how in a complex systems view of the universe that there are multiple competing variables that must be considered when calculating exact measures of space-time. Let's say we're talking about a Science Fiction story that needs to come up with a reasonable explanation for how teleportation works. Anytime a character is beamed up to a ship or down to planet there would need to vastly superior ability to locate space-time. With today's military grade version of GPS when can get with inches or centimeters of locating a coordinate. However that's not good enough, two inches too low might mean our character would have his feet "materialize" within solid rock. More exact measurements, down to the micron (one millionth of a meter) level would be needed to make the technology safe (and it would have to be able to compensate for scenarios where the target ground is uneven etc.).

Now it's time to define Relativity, we'll start with Special Relativity:

Einstein's theory of special relativity is fundamentally a theory of measurement. He qualified the theory as "special" because it refers only to uniform velocities (meaning to objects either at rest or moving at a constant speed). In formulating his theory, Einstein dismissed the concept of the "ether," and with it the "idea of absolute rest." Prior to the generation of Einstein's theory of special relativity, physicists had understood motion to occur against a backdrop of absolute rest (the "ether"), with this backdrop acting as a reference point for all motion. In dismissing the concept of this backdrop, Einstein called for a reconsideration of all motion. According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion. Measurement of motion is never absolute, but relative to a given position in space and time. 

Special Relativity is based on two key principles:

• The principle of relativity: The laws of physics don’t change, even for objects moving in inertial (constant speed) frames of reference.
• The principle of the speed of light: The speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the light source. (Physicists write this speed using the symbol C.)

Contrary to popular belief, the formula E=MC squared was not published as part of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, but was instead published the same year (1905) in a separate paper (Einstein published 4 papers that year).  Of particular interest to Einstein in his development of Special Relativity was the ability to apply a coordinate system to space-time (this will sound familiar as we've already introduced these concepts prior but outside the discussion of Relativity):

An event is a given place at a given time. Einstein, and others, suggested that we should think of space and time as a single entity called space-time. An event is a point p in space-time. To keep track of events we label each by four numbers: p = (t,x,y,z), where t represents the time coordinate and x, y and z represent the space coordinates (assuming a Cartesian coordinate system).

Even physicists have a sense of humor 

Now let's define General Relativity...

There was a serious problem with Special Relativity however, it was artificially constrained on several levels; the most important of which is the fact that it doesn't address acceleration (it handles reference frames at rest or at constant speeds only). The other constraint was the speed of light - C. Einstein has initially sought to help unify his theory with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (wave theory) - Maxwell had set C as a constant (that couldn't be surpassed) and Einstein carried that through. However, there was already evidence that this wasn't entirely accurate. The force responsible for the most obvious violations of C and the force responsible in many cases for acceleration was gravity... 

It (General Relativity) states that all physical laws can be formulated so as to be valid for any observer, regardless of the observer's motion. Consequently, due to the equivalence of acceleration and gravitation, in an accelerated reference frame, observations are equivalent to those in a uniform gravitational field.

This led Einstein to redefine the concept of space itself. In contrast to the Euclidean space in which Newton’s laws apply, he proposed that space itself might be curved. The curvature of space, or better space-time, is due to massive objects in it, such as the sun, which warp space around their gravitational centre. In such a space, the motion of objects can be described in terms of geometry rather than in terms of external forces. For example, a planet orbiting the Sun can be thought of as moving along a "straight" trajectory in a curved space that is bent around the Sun.

The most important concept from our perspective in both of these two theories is time dilation (which is referred to as Gravitational time dilation in General Relativity:

Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of Special Relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity. 

Another way to think of time dilation is this, the faster you travel (now were dealing acceleration), the slower your time progresses as opposed to those you left behind at home.  For science fiction fans, one of the few movies that remain true to this otherwise plot-busting feature of modern physics is the Planet of the Apes. In that plot, astronauts leaving Earth around 1973 travel at near the speed of light for 18 months and end up back on Earth 2,000 years later. Of course, it is unlikely that we'd experience the 'damn dirty ape paradox' if we attempted such a trip.

Apes don't kill apes but they will take over if we leave for a few thousand years...

So, let's recap again what this all means:

1. Several incredible and somewhat intuitive insights, transformed modern physics starting just over a century ago with Mach's Principle. (this isn't to say that other folks like Maxwell didn't provide brilliant insights, but for our investigation Mach's insight was particularly important)
2. This led to the determination that the universe behaves certain common laws yet those laws support relative perspectives of outcomes.
3. The notion of space-time as both a coordinate system and as a curved (multi-dimensional) geometry emerged. 
4. Because of all of this (and more) it was determined that our perception of time is different based upon what reference frame we inhabit. The differences in relative temporal perception are mostly due to the nature of the motion involved (for one or many participants involved).   
5. Gravity, which was a mysterious force before now becomes part of space-time itself under General Relativity and interestingly also seems to exhibit wave behavior. 

It is often said that General Relativity is the last classical theory of Physics as it is the last major one that doesn't involve Quantum mechanics. Relativity takes us much further down the path towards explaining time - but it stops short of doing so adequately.

In our next post, we'll point out why Relativity falls short and introduce some of the foundational concepts of Quantum Mechanics.

copyright 2013, Stephen  Lahanas

Read More

Deconstructing Time part 4 - Introducing Motion

In our last post on Time, we began providing some context to the discussion of time as well as context to where it is that Time actually occurs – e.g. within events and reference frames. For this discussion to really make sense though we need to step back and look at the big picture (actually this is something that will need to occur several times over the course of this series). At some point soon we’ll take a closer look at what Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum theory mean and how they relate to time, but for now we're going to spend a few moments discussing Motion. One key element that intersects all of those core theories in physics is the notion of Motion (and of course this applies to Newton's Classic theories as well). Motion and Time are inextricably linked. All of our current perception related to time, and all of our current measurement systems connected to it are “motion-based.”

What does 'Motion-based' mean? Well, let’s list a few examples below:

1. A day is one rotation of the earth.
2. An SI second (the new standard for measuring seconds) is based on the decay of a Cesium atom – that decay is expressed as regular pulsations.
3. A year is a standard orbit of Earth around the Sun.
4. A month is a standard orbit of the Moon around the Earth.
5. A light year is the time it takes a photon of light to travel from one point in space to another. 
6. We travel at roughly 70 miles per hour on the highway on our way to work (e.g. the velocity expressed equals time to cover a distance in continuous motion). 
7. Time flies when you’re having fun. I’ve added this here because there is an important perception consideration for time that appears at least to be related intensity of activities (this as we will see is also motion-related although at first it doesn't seem to be intuitively).
8. The Galactic Year is the time it takes the solar system to orbit around the center of the Milky Way (estimated to be 250 million years or so).
9. Geocentric Coordinate Time (also known as TCG) - This is defined as “a coordinate time standard intended to be used as the independent variable of time for all calculations pertaining to precession, nutation, the Moon, and artificial satellites of the Earth. It is equivalent to the proper time experienced by a clock at rest in a coordinate frame co-moving with the center of the Earth: that is, a clock that performs exactly the same movements as the Earth but is outside the Earth's gravity well. It is therefore not influenced by the gravitational time dilation caused by the Earth.” We will list all formally defined "Time Measurement Systems" 2 posts from now.

Now this last example I included is particularly interesting because it is an international standard already being used to help assign coordinates in 4 dimensional spacetime – it was defined specifically to conform to current theory relating to relativistic space. However, as one can tell from reading the description, it is largely limited to the study of coordinates within our solar system. Another interesting fact is that it is only one of several competing coordinate time systems that have arisen to help astronomers deal with the same Use Case we described in our first post on Time – the ability to locate events within spacetime.

One of the main problems with all of the coordinate systems and even with our current theories on spacetime is the earth-centric perspective we tend to toss in. What does that mean? Well, for the above example we are taking into account planetary motion but not the overall motion of the solar system, the galaxy etc. We touched upon the “taxonomy” of motion context in an earlier post and here it is again (and it actually extends to much lower measurements):

• The earth rotates – motion vector 0
• The earth orbits the sun - motion vector 1
• The solar system travels within its neighborhood in the milky way - motion vector 2
• The milky way itself is rotating – motion vector 3
• The milky way is also hurtling towards the Andromeda galaxy and will collide with in about 25 galaxy years - motion vector 4
• The universe itself is expanding outward at incredible speeds. In fact according to the latest data it is speeding up and some of it even appears to be moving away from us faster than light (1.4 C)!

So, each of these motion contexts listed above has its own velocity, trajectory and mass/gravitational considerations.

There's a whole lot of motion going on around us, do we continue to ignore it?

This taxonomy doesn't include any of the motion that might be occurring on the surface of the planet. That could include walking, riding in a plane, the motion occurring beneath us in Tectonic Plates or even the earth’s core (which is what generates our magnetosphere) or the motion with our bodies or even at the sub-atomic level. There is motion everywhere it is exists at every scale imaginable. More than that though, all of this ‘Contextual Motion’ is occurring along different trajectories. So let’s talk about this in relation to a coordinate system for finding an event in spacetime. The current coordinate systems use four vectors (3 for 3 D space 1 for time t) to locate planetary bodies in space. A scientist might ask the question, where will Saturn’s moon Titan be in ten years on January 10th, 2:00 pm eastern time? Using this type of coordinate system and extrapolating the known orbital behavior of Saturn around the Sun and Titan around Saturn we can plot where it will be at the designated time and date from the perspective of Earth. This works to some degree of precision for the following reasons:

1. It’s still very close to us (from both the galactic and universal perspectives).
2. We are deliberating pegging it to Earth time so using standards based on Earth motion is ok.
3. We assume all other contextual motion will continue moving along the same trajectories they have been so we don't ever bother to factor them in – they become a more or less “absolute” background. The only motion we concern ourselves with is within our own Solar system.

So, if we try to extend this out to a galactic scale we see where the problems will arise almost immediately:

• We’re dealing with massive distances.
• We can’t or shouldn't use Earth focused time scales for managing coordinates.
• Contextual motion becomes very important once we move away from a localized perspective. We can no longer view external motion as an absolute because it in reality it isn't. At the galactic scale it becomes dynamic (and in fact always was even at our scale although that dynamism isn't regularly perceptible by us). 

The problem becomes more immediately noticeable if we decide we need to locate more discrete events – e.g. something smaller than a moon’s orbit – something let’s say like locating the “Peach Orchard” action that occurred on the second day of the Battle Gettysburg (see figure below). This particular event also has the distinction of having occurred in the past rather than the present or future. The diagram illustrates rough Geo-spatial coordinates and major arcs of movement but without topology (altitude) . It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to add topology and clock readings (taken by observers of the battle) next to the movements in the diagram although we cannot be sure how precise that the clock readings are. The real question we need to ask ourselves is this; would the 4-vector coordinates for this reference frame and set of events (the location in Gettysburg and the time the action started and when it finished) be sufficient to actually locate the timespace where the battle occurred?

We know where it occurred and when it occurred, but would this be enough to find the actual event?

The timespace described by the 4 vector coordinates could be logically correct  once we add the missing information – we have represented the location and duration within the context of Earth movement. But what really happened since the battle took place – did the earth travel around and around in the same timespace ‘groove’ for 150 years or did it travel in its orbital groove trajectory across multiple layers of contextual motion – most of which was not moving in exact alignment with our movement? I’m afraid it was the latter. The Earth we’re standing on now isn't moving across an absolute background (what Newton called Absolute Space) – we have moved a phenomenal distance across space in multiple directions simultaneously. Isn't that impossible? Well, maybe not. If we were to express each layer of contextual motion as a distinct dimension then it becomes feasible to track motion across as many as may be involved by simply adding more vectors. The level of accuracy in determining the coordinates we wish to achieve will be dictated largely by how many vectors we choose to apply to the calculations. Of course, there will be a point where adding more vectors becomes counter-productive (we could see that coming close to approximating issues associated with quantum physics).

You might be asking yourselves why folks in the scientific community haven’t been viewing these issues in this manner; here why:

1. For most of the past century we were still assimilating and validating the core premises of relativity and quantum mechanics – it was a lot to digest. We've also become obsessed as to why those three theories don't match up rather than challenging the underlying premises of all 3. The theories have become "institutionalized" - we experienced 30 years or so of radical conceptual expansion which ended in the 1930's (for the core theories) and then settled in around those core theories rather than taking them to the next level.
2. It’s only recently that we've begun looking further into space and decided to look for tiny objects like planets.
3. It’s hard for people residing on Earth not to view the Universe from Earth’s perspective – and it wasn't that long ago that most people thought that Earth was the center of the Universe.
4. It’s a lot easier to make math work if 1 – the formulas are simpler, and 2 there is a fixed reference point to compare to. And science currently rewards the least complicated theories and formulas. The problem with that of course is that some aspects of nature are complicated.

This last point is particularly interesting. For those of you who have read anything about Special Relativity you will probably recall thought experiments such as at the observers on the train platform watching the lightning bolt hit from different perspectives. We tend to construct of all these scenarios as 2 observers in relative motion to one another or to an observer stationary in relation to another. The thing is when we construct it that way we leave out all of the potential contextual motion that may be occurring (or complex event scenarios). Perhaps the limited set of variables is OK to determine whether time dilation or other relativistic phenomenon is occurring or not, but is it sufficient to predict truly accurate event coordinates? Maybe not...

We will explore that and Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Mach's Principle in our next post. The thing is - in order to understand Time - we have to tackle almost all of Modern Physics.

copyright 2013, Stephen Lahanas

Read More

Deconstructing Time - part 3: Reference Frames

In our past two posts on time, we began to outline some key concepts, most notably the notion of an “event.” Today we’re going to try to add some more context to the discussion and then talk about “Frames.”

A Contextual Dilemma
Let’s say NASA made a breakthrough in propulsion and in its ability to secure some funding (the real miracle perhaps). A mission is being planned to the nearest star that is believed to have an earth-like planet, Kepler 10b. This star system is approximately 500 light years from Earth. In basic terms, this means that the light that we see today emanating from Kepler 10b is not from that star’s present, but from 500 years in its past. We can somewhat accurately plot where Kepler 10b is now as well as all of its locations along its journey between 500 years ago and its “now.” (because it is travelling on a stable course – at least it has been up to the point we’ve been able to witness in its 500 years ago – who knows – aliens from Alpha Centauri could have blown up the whole star system 200 years ago in their time, there is no way for us to know for sure).

NASA artist conception of Kepler 10b

So, you might be thinking it’s obvious that we would be travelling to the “Now” version of Kepler 10b, right? Well maybe it’s not so obvious. Let’s assume that a propulsion approach better than today’s has been discovered providing us speeds up to 20,000 km/s.  This still doesn't come anywhere close to light speed. At this better yet still sluggish speed, it would take our astronauts more than 16,000 years to arrive at the Kepler 10b star system. This obviously doesn't equate to the Now we just extrapolated for Kepler 10b just a moment ago – the ‘Now’ that is equivalent to the distance it traveled since the light we see on Earth's now was generated (500 years ago).

What if we were able to travel at or close to the speed of light (or faster than light)? According to Special Relativity, if we are travelling at close to the speed of light (say 97% or so) then the actual time it takes to arrive at Kepler 10b is 12 years (in travel time felt by the astronauts). For folks back on Earth, 502 years will have passed. So, which Kepler 10b do we arrive at then if we're travelling that fast(important to know so we’re actually pointed at where/when it will be)? Let’s see if we can guess:

1. It’s not the Kepler 10b from which the original light we were looking at came from.
2. It’s not the Kepler 10b that is in the same instance of Now as Earth is. (this is a complex topic and we will explore it in more depth soon).
3. It’s not the Kepler 10b that it would have taken us 16,000 years to reach. (because we close to light speed)
4. It may be the Kelper 10b roughly 12 years after the point we measured the 500 year light old from Earth and determined when was Kepler's Now (in other words 512 years or 12 years into Kepler 10b's future). Or, it may not be.

The reason that there is some uncertainty relates to the fact that all of our measurements are being generated based on time as defined in Earth or near-Earth contexts. We are also assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Earth and Kepler 10b are moving away from one another at a constant speed. There are some galaxies that despite universal expansion are moving towards one another.

Why would any of this be important? Well, say we were dealing with a typical Science Fiction scenario where people from Earth were preparing to making a first contact with a race of intelligent beings whom were on the verge of discovering atomic energy. In that situation, showing up even five years too late might be devastating, but it would also be somewhat embarrassing if we showed up several hundred years early as well (to witness the invention of the rifled musket instead).

Events occur within Reference Frames (a two dimensional visualization of a multi-dimensional phenomenon)

The invention of a weapon might be viewed as an event as would be any number of activities involved with traveling between Earth and Kepler 10b. Finding the events (across both time and space and across significant distances in space) is a tricky business. One way to help better understand events and how to locate them is by placing them in the context of Reference Frame.

Here is the Wikipedia definition:

In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) may refer to a coordinate system used to represent and measure properties of objects such as their position and orientation. It may also refer to a set of axes used for such representation. 

Alternatively, in relativity, the phrase can be used to refer to the relationship between a moving observer and the phenomenon or phenomena under observation. In this context, the phrase often becomes "observational frame of reference" (or "observational reference frame"). The context may itself include a coordinate system used to represent the observer and phenomenon or phenomena.

The Reference Frame is the timespace box within which an event or events occurs. The box though is not limited to 3 three dimensional geometry as it exists across time and space. In fact, the box really doesn't exist at all except in the context of providing a conceptual grid field that allows us to distinguish events from each other. The other key aspect of a Frame is that it allows us to define the boundary for Simultaneity.

Frames don't always move in the same direction...

Sorry for tossing in another new term so quickly – but it’s a key one that helps us to cement events within frames. Simultaneity is often viewed or described in purely relativistic terms, but here we’re going to view it a bit more broadly. Simultaneity is the Now that corresponds to an event within a frame or frames. Simultaneity is usually restricted by the ability to pass information back and forth between observers at the speed of light, C. In the old days, this represented information that could be seen directly – nowadays it can be a live internet video conference between Dayton, Ohio and Tokyo, Japan. This live conference may be occurring 12 time zones apart and the folks in either city would be sitting in a different calendar day than the participants in the other city. Yet, the event is synchronized through a global agreement on the tracking of Terrestrial time (Greenwich Mean Time - GMT) and communications that are passing across satellites and phone lines at roughly the speed of light. So, even though it may be 6:00 pm in Dayton and 7:00 a.m. tomorrow in Toyko, the meeting is a simultaneous event which occurs in the same reference frame.

This is curious even at our own limited scale here on Earth, isn’t it? The people in Dayton are in effect travelling into tomorrow to attend the meeting and the folks in Toyko are going back in time – strictly speaking. In a larger sense, all of us, in Toyko, Ohio and the rest of the planet are travelling forward through time in a sequential, linear manner. So, we have already proved that time travel does indeed exist, sort of.

But let’s get back to Reference Frames; here’s our definition of what they are:

A Reference Frame is the logical boundary within which an event or events may occur. The Frame exhibits (approximate) Simultaneity for the events and participants within and can be used to provide a coordinate system for tracking events. 

The biggest difference between my definition and that associated with Relativity Theory surrounds the use of the word “Logical.” By adding this we allow much more flexibility to the concept. Let’s say for example someone invented a quantum communications system between Earth and Mars. Instead of each transmission taking 8 minutes to send, the communication would be instantaneous (or worse, a reply might be received before a message was sent – we’ll talk about that eventually).

Thus a news conference with our Mars exploration team could become a simultaneous event occurring within one very large (for us) Reference Frame. Let’s add some other characteristics for Frames while we’re at it:

• Frames can last for indefinite duration.
• Frames can overlap.
• Frames generally exist in the same time phase or phase space (more on that later).
• Frames expand and collapse – there isn’t a fixed grid in timespace – only the potential for one, when potential is realized, frames appear (or more accurately can be discovered).
• Frames are supported under both classical and relativistic physics – they may also be supported by Quantum physics but we may never be able to assign coordinates at that scale.
• Frames are by their nature, multi-dimensional.
• Events can be linked within and across frames through “Continuity Paths.”

In conclusion for today’s post I’d like to leave you all with one key thought – the context of the trip I provided earlier makes it clear that any significant travel into Space is in fact an exercise in both Space and Time travel. Why that’s the case is the topic of our next post.



copyright 2013, Stephen Lahanas

Read More

Deconstructing Time - part 2 "Events"

In the last post, I introduced a new line of dialog for Technovation Talks and provided my own "frame of reference" for how the investigation may proceed. This post will be used to begin quantifying Time. I think most people probably have a sense that this is something that has already been figured out. However, the deeper you dive into the topic, the less clear it seems to get. And any lack of clarity would make it difficult if not impossible to create reproducible mechanisms for identifying events.

We'll start by defining "Event."

Here's the Wikipedia definition:

In physics, and in particular relativity, an event indicates a physical situation or occurrence, located at a specific point in space and time. For example, a glass breaking on the floor is an event; it occurs at a unique place and a unique time, in a given frame of reference. 

Strictly speaking, the notion of an event is an idealization, in the sense that it specifies a definite time and place, whereas any actual event is bound to have a finite extent, both in time and in space. One of the goals of relativity is to specify the possibility of one event influencing another. 

I'm focusing on Events to begin with because I believe this is perhaps the most likely way to help identify paths and or coordinates within spacetime. The use of the term Event in this context is generally associated with the modern view of time - e.g. time as described in the context of both Special and General Relativity (although surprise, surprise Einstein's two theories don't exactly agree with each other on this topic and neither of them have been reconciled yet with quantum physics). Events are also mostly ignored in the previous accepted paradigm defined by Newton  - known as Absolute Time. Here's how Sir Issac described it:

Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard 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.

nice scarf, Issac...

It's worth noting here that there was disagreement on this definition almost immediately after it was introduced and that debate was one of the key factors in helping to drive modern theory. So Newton accounts for the possibility of events but relates them to what he calls "common time." Interestingly, also he contends that absolute time is independent of motion, sort of an a priori view of time - time is as time may be defined in its own right, or time as a constant.  A constant is a measure - but an event is that which is measured which is why we're starting there.

Beyond the initial description of what an event is an abstract sense, there isn't any agreed upon definition as to what an event in physics actually represents. Without that understanding that it is highly unlikely that we could ever define precise/distinct events or come close to pinpointing them in any sort of consistent fashion. So let's revisit the definition of an event by first attributing some more characteristics to it:

• An event is dynamic. In other words, there is no standard duration or scope bounding any given event.
• Events can occur at multiple levels of context. This can extend from the subatomic level up through to a universal scale. Those levels of context can become a more or less de facto Event Taxonomy.
• Events are grouped within reference frames, those frames inhabit all levels of context (in varying sizes).
• An event requires at least one entity and in most cases two in order to occur. (I'll explain this is more detail later - situations with only one involve humans).
• An event involves some interchange of energy. On the atomic scale this could be visualized as electrons colliding, on the cellular it could be white blood cells engulfing bacteria and absorbing their energy or on our scale it might be more subtle - one action impacts the causality chain of others (some within the same frame of reference, others outside of it). There is the possibility that this interchange may provide some sort of identifiable signature (not unlike some of the phenomena we search for in subatomic physics when looking for new particles we think exist but haven't captured or detected yet).
• All events have a beginning and end point, however events can overlap and events can be chained together in a variety of different ways. Event chains can also follow distinct trajectories within timespace called "event paths" (or 'continuity paths' - more on that later).
• Events occur within a given time phase (that phase is a combination of a number of factors including frame, context and information velocity).
• Measuring an event impacts or changes that event. In other words, the Heisenberg principle applies. 
• The duration of an event is dictated by the duration required to complete any given interaction or set of interactions. 
• No two events are exactly the same. 
• Events inhabit a specific, definable region of spacetime - however this region (or set of coordinates as the event moves along with spacetime) cannot be accurately identified using the current method for assigning location in 4 dimensional spacetime (4 vector coordinates - more on that later).
• Human perception adds a number of complications to the nature of events that must be resolved if we ever intend to develop consistent framework for understanding them. For example, determinations of how to group or separate events will at first be a somewhat subjective exercise - as an example of that I've included an illustration of a somewhat arbitrary framework for doing it directly below.  
• If we accept some of the key precepts of relativity and current evidence it is clear that events from past, present and future can exist in one simultaneous frame of reference, at least indirectly (more on this later).
• Events exhibit simultaneity - in others words, the entities within it share a 'now' which is defined by the ability to synchronize information across / over the span of the event. This is typically described in physics as the ability to transmit information using light thus it is bounded by the C or constant speed of light.  

This represent a potential way to stack or organize events...

Based on these characteristics then, here is a somewhat modified base definition for "Event:"

An event is an identifiable portion of spacetime, characterized by the interaction of entities within its scope of relative simultaneity.  

I've noted that scope is bounded by relative simultaneity for two reasons:

1. That for human entities / observers, simultaneity can extend to significant distances through use of technology. (more on that later). 
2. That at the Quantum or subatomic level, (and potentially at the universal level) information exchange is not restricted by C. 

In our next post we talk a little bit about travelling to a nearby star and its implications to our views of spacetime and introduce reference frames in more detail.



copyright 2013, Stephen  Lahanas

Read More

Deconstructing Time - part 1

We're going to expand the scope of our examinations here on Technovation Talks to include dialogs on more fundamental topics related to science, technology and innovation. We will begin this new chapter in our blog by launching a discussion about Time. This dialog will investigate both current thinking and its gaps as well as the technological implications of our ever-evolving understanding regarding the nature of time.

Deconstructing Time - Part 1: An Introduction

I tend to work as a consultant - the scope of that work encompasses Information Technology, but the methodology and nature of that type of work can be applied to any problem space. In my opinion, the type of methodology we tend to use today in most IT projects is considerably more flexible (or Agile) than those used for most other professions. This wasn't always the case. From the 1950's to the 1980's Information Systems (IS) as a practice area was much more rigid. The reason why it was more rigid was the relative pace of innovation, which during that time period was substantially slower than it is today. If we were able to plot both quantity of technological change and the rate of acceleration of that change would become even more obvious why less rigid thinking was needed. Beginning in the 1990's, the pace of change reached a critical mass - IS became IT - and this lead to an explosion of jobs in the IT field and the introduction of many people who hadn't initially viewed IT as a career opportunity.  

From the perspective of this new influx of people, the attraction to this evolving field included:

• The ability to define technology.
• The ability to help define new fields of practice. 
• The freedom to think 'out of the box' - creativity is rewarded in IT now more often than it is in most other fields.
• The ability to apply IT to help redefine everything else in society. 

IT is the place to be for people who want to exercise innovation on a regular basis. I'm not saying that innovation doesn't occur in other fields, it certainly does, the difference may be in how hard one has to fight to achieve it elsewhere as compared to IT. The phenomena behind what I'm describing is not unique to recent history - it simply reflects the nature of collective consensus - in other words once key concepts are well defined, a community unites behind them. Concepts become 'institutionalized' and entry into the community (of practice) requires adherence to those concepts. Questioning the foundational concepts of the group is generally discouraged - or at the very least only permitted within restricted parameters. IT stands out today in that entry into the group is very informal and questioning of premises is tolerated because the premises or fundamental approaches are in a constant state of flux.

So, what does all this have to with Time? Well, what I'm proposing in this series of posts is to reexamine current assumptions in regards to how we view Time as a construct and to apply my IT-related methodology to that 'problem space.' This is both a theoretical and practical exercise. It's theoretical because we are challenging and hopefully changing some key assumptions and practical in that this modified world-view will have a number of practical (and maybe not so practical applications).

Disclaimer - what will follow in this series is a layman's description of the problem space; the intent is not to provide mathematical proofs but rather to illustrate conceptual alternatives. This is not altogether different than how I would approach a problem strictly associated with IT (we don't express design logic in binary format or assembly language but rather through the abstraction the design elements into conceptual or logical terms).

We will use a tailored or specialized version of our typical IT methodology - it is based on assessing topics in the context of problem space. Our problem space for this exploration is complex time-space coordinate mapping or travel. The central question is this - how does one locate an event in time/space?  In order to answer this, I've constructed an approach through the following steps:

1. Re-examination of core assumptions regarding time (or TimeSpace). The expectation is that this will lead to some redefinition of the topic matter.
2. Determine of an approach for coordinate mapping for event location. 
3. Assess current (design) patterns for travel within SpaceTime.
4. Create updated patterns for travel within SpaceTime.
5. Explore potential applications for the modified assumptions and new patterns.

Our segue into the following post is the definition of Time itself. What is it? Here's what Merriam Webster says:

Measured or measurable period. More broadly, it is a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions. Philosophers have sought an understanding of time by focusing on the broad questions of the relation between time and the physical world and the relation between time and consciousness. Those who adopt an absolutist theory of time regard it as a kind of container within which the universe exists and change takes place, and believe that its existence and properties are independent of the physical universe. According to the rival relationist theory, time is nothing over and above change in the physical universe. Largely because of Albert Einstein, it is now held that time cannot be treated in isolation from space (see space-time). Some argue that Einstein's theories of relativity vindicate relationist theories, others that they vindicate the absolutist theory. The primary issue concerning the relation between time and consciousness is the extent, if any, to which time or aspects of time depend on the existence of conscious beings. Events in time are normally thought of in terms of notions of past, present, and future, which some philosophers treat as mind-dependent; others believe that time is independent of perception and hold that past, present, and future are objective features of the world. See also geologic time, Greenwich Mean Time, standard time, Universal Time.

Other searches will trawl in many more definitions; dozens, even hundreds of them and of course many books have been dedicated to the subject. But perhaps some of these definitions are too complicated to get the topic started  so let's identify characteristics that tend to be related to Time in one fashion or another; these include:

• Time is something that is perceived.
• Time is something that is measurable.
• Time seems to be related to space.
• Time seems to be related to motion, distance and velocity.
• Time may be relative to the perspective from which it measured or perceived. 
• Time appears to be linear.
• Time has both 'local' and 'global' contexts - e.g. it seems scalable.
• Time may or may not be a physical construct.
• Time seems to break down at both the subatomic and universal scale (e.g. big bang)

The next post will take a deeper dive into the definitions of Time.



copyright 2013, Stephen  Lahanas

Read More