h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm not sure the 2D/3D retina description actually helps.

The comments about a 3D retina enabling one to see the floor, walls and ceiling at the same time might lead someone to confuse '3D' with '360 degree'.
Seeing in 3D might still be directional, or limited in extent, but would allow the observation of things beyond non-occluded surfaces. We might not be able to see the floor when looking up, but might be able to see things above the ceiling, as well as the ceiling itself.

In practice, the brain uses many different kinds of visual cues and other tricks and knowledge to generate a model of the surfaces of the 3D world.
We can use memory to support a 3D model of what is beyond the celiing, if we have prior knowledge of it, or to take a guess at the contents of the TV, if we have experience of similar objects.

Actually being given sense organs that allowed 3D vision (some kind of X-ray/MRI sense) might not be particularly strange or hard to deal with, though I suspect that we'd still largely ignore all but the surfaces of objects, since they are all that we usually physically interact with.

This is a fascinating and well-written account.

I also find one thing less than perfectly phrased: the statement that movies "are just collections of fast-moving photographs". Moving photographs is not exactly what you want to say; the photographs are each static in themselves, they are quickly replaced or swiftly-succeeding. You might say "they are just quick successions of still photographs" or something like that.

You might (or might not) like to link to my entry on the 18th-century empiricist philosopher Berkeley (it is currently at A3390554 but has been picked and is now with a sub). Berkeley challenged Newton's definition of time as something that "flows equably of itself" (Principia). Berkeley protested that there can be no idea of time without events. He proposed a description that seemed uncomfortably subjective, namely that time is "the succession of ideas in the mind". Perhaps this is not so far from Hawking's attaching time to the processing of information?

There is a good quote from St Augustine: "What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks me, I do not know."

Thank you! I have fixed the movie explanation and I added a paragraph in the classical approach section that links to your entry.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congratulations!

Well done!

Mol

Hey BB,

I've been given your terrific entry to subedit, and the result is at A3577241. If you spot anything that needs attention, please drop me a note.

SchrEck Inc.

Hi

I'm a little puzzled about the following sentence in the article, The Nature of Time, which said, '...the electrons that make up the current often have a choice of paths in the wires. Their choice is entirely random, which is why it always seems that the current is split 50:50.'

OK, I can understand what you are saying, but to say the 'choice is entirely random' is a contradictory statement. Not only that, the use of the word 'choice' indicates some form of intelleigent decision is made by electrons, which of course they can't do. Wouldn't it be better to say they follow a random path that is influenced by a fields of electrical forces they pass through.

However, this was simply a passing remark with regards to your article, which was not the main reason for me contacting you. My reason for writing is to express and share my deep interest in the nature of time, a subject I have studied for almost forty years.

I have one major concern with the spacetime model, which in reality only describes the when and where of an object/body. It does not tell us what time itself is. Yet some scientists I have exchanged emails with stand firm with the spacetime model, not wishing to entertain a new idea that might explain the nature of time without using the spacetime model.

Over the past forty years of my own investigation into the nature of time I have developed a new concept that can explain the physical nature and cause of time. Although some are unwilling to accept my findings, others however have shown great interest.

My work assumes that time has a direct relationship with Einstein's mass-energy conversion, which in fact is the cause of time itself. Einstein's equation shows that mass and energy are two aspects of the same thing, and my theory shows something similar. It states that time and energy are also two aspects of the same thing. Without energy, time could not exist therefore nothing would change, and as we know, 'change' is a prime characteristic of passing time.

Without going into too much detail here, and to put it in a nut shell, my work shows time has a direct relationship with mass and energy. Spacetime is simply a mathematical model of space and time, but is unable to explain time itself. My paper however seperates time from space and gives a good assumption of what time is and what causes it to behave the way it does.

For those who would like to read my paper and possibly pass on some comments can find it at www.btinternet.com/~author.ron

It was recently placed in the top ten list of the Pathways to Philosophy website, as well as being mentioned in the Open University science magazine, 'Sesame'.

Regards.

Ronontime.

Thank you Schreck; I can't suggest anything to change myself but you might want to alter the bit that Ronontime has pointed out.

I am a little skeptical of any theory that abandons long-held theories as successful as Einstein's unification of space and time, but I'll be sure to get round to reading your paper. If a theory sounds elegant enough, that is, if it so neatly explains a complex theory with a physical model, then I'm likely to be very interested. That's one reason why I like string theory, for example.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The 'random passage' part is now sightly changed. See ya on the front page!

The 'random passage' part is now slightly changed. See ya on the front page!

I take it since there's been no response to the invitation to read my hypothesis on the nature and cause of time means, 'no comments'

My work has been described as being one of the best physics definitions of time ever read that has created a bridge for time between the quantum world and the macro world.


Ron.

I commented in post 49... and I'm afraid I just haven't had time to read it yet! I promise I will, because I'm really very interested in this topic (obviously), and I like to keep an open mind to all these possibilities. Sorry about that.

Ron -- I've had a read but I don't find it enlightening. For where I am coming from, see my entries on two philosophers who have dealt with the nature of time: A3472986 "George Berkeley: Sceptic, Philosopher and Bishop" and A1024156 "Ludwig Wittgenstein". Berkeley challenged the scientific route you follow, deriving perceptions from atoms, and Wittgenstein challenged the sort of misuse of language that bows to unfounded expectations: if it's a noun ("time") it must denote a "thing".

Although Berkeley defined time in perceptual terms (the sequence of ideas in the mind) he did not thereby imply that "Time has no physical existence; it’s merely an illusion of the mind, therefore does not flow in the external world; so it can be assumed there is no future or past, and only the present is real." That conclusion is not justified.

Your article may have been described in glowing terms, but that in itself does not commend it to the general reader. A friend of mine was once told he was one of the greatest musicians in Europe; but without naming the speaker, that accolade does not belong in his CV.

Specifically:

"Why have we failed to develop a good hypothesis or theory that haven’t as yet received a unanimous vote of acceptance?"

--The grammar is suspect here. Do you mean "Why have we failed to develop a good hypothesis or theory that can receive a unanimous vote of acceptance?"

". . . we should be able to determine whether or not time exist, have a flow quality; whether or not the past and future exists and how it relates to the present and the moment we call ‘now’, and also allow us to define what time itself is."

--This fails Wittgenstein's test for meaningfulness. It is nebulous and only looks meaningful because it has an identifiable subject, predicate and so on. It is well formed gramatically, but it asks questions ("what time itself is") that burst the boundaries of meaningful language. Time does not have to be a thing, to have existence (what's existence?) -- it is enough for it to be a usable concept, we can ask no more of it.

"There appears to be two basic schools of thought with respect to time, namely:
a) Time has no physical existence; it’s merely an illusion of the mind, therefore does not flow in the external world; so it can be assumed there is no future or past, and only the present is real.
b) Time has real physical existence; so it can be assumed time flows, and there is a past, a present and a future."

--This false dichotomy merely begs the question(s).

". . . from simple atomic elements to highly structured forms that can breath, think and reproduce itself."

--More dodgy grammar and/or spelling (breathe? themselves?).

"The presence of electrons around a nucleus creates atomic elements with a time basis, which endows matter the ability to change and progress with a time factor."

--This echoes the pseudo-science of Moliere's doctor, who explains how morphine makes you sleepy by saying that it has dormitive properties.

"The passage of time is energy dependent where energy is the source of work that causes change, therefore energy can be defined as being the root of time."

--Alas introducing the concept of "root" at this point moves you further away, not closer to a definition. What you are saying (as I see it) is that time is the vector of change. Fine, but not new.

"The emission of energy is the cause of time flow that has power to move matter forwards along the time dimension towards its future of ultimate death or destruction and total decay."

--As in the second law of thermodynamics. The concepts of "cause" and "power" are however the mystery itself, not the explanation.

"Atomic elements possess a mass basis and a time basis that combines under the influence of fundamental forces; and when coupled with a source of energy, being the power of change, matter is set into motion with a time function."

--This is to me "no light, but rather darkness visible".

I once heard a student teacher trying to introduce the concept of "force" to a science class of twelve-year-olds. (I was a fellow-student, teaching maths in the adjoining classroom.) He said "if you throw a ball against a wall, it bounces back, because of the force that's in it", and perhaps realising that this didn't say much, he drove it home by saying the word "force" very loudly.

I recommend Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations".

Highly.