If gravity is a wave/particle, and 'time' is a function of it's definition,
is 'time' also a wave/particle, or simply a synthetic, linear measure.

If not so, does time radiate?

R. Henry Nigl
www.exoptica.com

On 2005-08-20, RHNL wrote:
If gravity is a wave/particle, and 'time' is a function of it's definition,
is 'time' also a wave/particle, or simply a synthetic, linear measure.

If not so, does time radiate?

This is a perfect example of an ill posed question. Let me try to
explain why.

Gravity, as we see it around us, is a force. That is, every object has
an arrow attached to it that points in the direction that gravity wants
the object to go. That's how we explain why things fall. Going up one
level of sophistication, we might wonder what determines the direction
and magnitude of this force. Many very smart people have struggled with
this question, two of the most notable ones being Newton and Einstein.
The best theory we have to date is general relativity, which is
approximated by Newtonian gravity in most everyday situations. GR says
that at every point in space, we can define a quantity (or rather a
group of quantities collectively) labeled the metric tensor. It also
says that this metric tensor field obeys equations of motion that are,
in a sense, similar to those of electromagnetism. Similarly, the
equations of GR admit wave like solutions for the metric tensor.

Time, as wee commonly think, is measured by counting the number of ticks
of a clock, a wris****ch would do for example. Everyone can carry their
one watch, and compare the time readings from time to time. It turns
out that, even without tinkering with their watches, different people
get different readings on their clocks when compared, the difference
depends on where each person has been. Again, going up one level of
sophistication, we may wonder how much the time readings change
depending on the motion of different people between two comparisons. The
best answer to this question is again general relativity. GR says that
these differences can be calculated from the values of the metric
tensor.

At this point, one might be tempted to think that since the
gravitational force and time are both related to the metric tensor, that
they must be the same. However, this is a logical fallacy, relation does
not imply identity. I hope that the extent of the difference between
time and gravitational forces is clear from the above two paragraphs.

Now, let's talk about the wave/particle business. So far the discussion
has been purely classical. However, for more than a hundred years now,
people have been noticing that certain particles have wave-like
properties (electrons), while certain waves have particle-like
properties (high energy electromagnetic radiation, gamma rays). Again,
being seekers of sophistication, we ask why that is. The question has
also puzzled a great many people, and resulted in our best answer to
date being quantum mechanics. Once waves and particles are described
quantum mechanically, their respective particle-like and wave-like
properties appear naturally. As I mentioned above, in GR, the metric
tensor is a classical field that admits wave-like solutions known as
gravitational radiation. Logically extrapolating what we know from
quantum mechanics to gravitational radiation, we conclude that
high energy gravitational radiation must possess particle-like
properties.[1]

At this point, we might be tempted to ascribe these wave/particle
properties to the gravitational force and time, since they are both
related to the metric tensor. However, this is the same logical fallacy
as before. The wave/particle properties can be attributed to the
behavior of gravitational wave solutions to the metric tensor, once
quantum theory is taken into account. But as already discussed, neither
the gravitational force nor the measurements that we call time can be
identified with the metric tensor, and hence cannot inherit its
attributes.

To sum up. There is no answer to your question, since it does not make
sense. Similarly, there is no answer to the question "What color is the
speed of a car?".

A much more sensible question would be: Given that quantum theory
predicts wave/particle properties of gravitational radiation, how could
these properties be detected with measurements of time and gravitational
forces?

Hope this helps.

Igor

[1] Of course, there are problems with applying quantum mechanics to
gravity, but they go beyond the scope of this post. It is also worth
noting that the application of quantum mechanics to weak gravitational
radiation is not particularly controversial. However, neither the
classical nor the quantum form of gravitational radiation has been
directly observed.

Dear Igor,

??!!

Your answer was beautiful!

RHNL/GHD


"Igor Khavkine" wrote in message
...
On 2005-08-20, RHNL wrote:
If gravity is a wave/particle, and 'time' is a function of it's
definition, is 'time' also a wave/particle, or simply a synthetic,
linear measure.

If not so, does time radiate?

This is a perfect example of an ill posed question. Let me try to
explain why.

[ Mod. note: 80+ quoted lines deleted. Please quote reasonably. -ik ]

R. Henry Nigl wrote:
If gravity is a wave/particle, and 'time' is a function of it's definition,
is 'time' also a wave/particle, or simply a synthetic, linear measure.

If not so, does time radiate?

Igor Khavkine wrote:
This is a perfect example of an ill posed question. Let me try to
explain why.

I agree that the question is not well posed. However, coming as I do
from a perspective of a study of cycles, I have interpreted a possible
different meaning to what you have.

I cannot say to what extent the following facts are due to gravity,
electromagnetism or some other force, only that the evidence for
periodicity (wave-like behaviour) exists on all time and distance scales.

The largest reported periodicity in space is a 590 million light year
spacing of super galactic clusters (based on the latest Hubble constant
of 71 km/s/Mpc). This corresponds to a quite commonly reported
geological cycle period of 586 million years and shows that there is
indeed some type of wave structure in both space and time of that period.

Another example is that 160 minute periods have been observed in active
galaxy nuclei by Russian astronomers and these correspond to the
expected gravitational wave oscillations of typical galactic black hole
sizes. Such a period is also observed in the Sun as an oscillation and
as an 80 light minute spacing (10 au) between the outer planets. The
halving of the distance may be attributed to there being two nodes per
wave. A 160 minute period oscillation seems to pervade the universe as
it shows up very significantly as a peek in a number of astronomical
period measurements such as binary stars.

Physicists assure me that gravitational waves are not strong enough for
the observed effects. In that case, as something is definitely going on,
we may have to conclude that new physics is needed.

As regards the question of linear measure of time, we can only count
events and compare to other event counts. On that basis we can say that
all measures of time do have fluctuations of various amounts. The
definition of time has gradually been revised from the earth's synodic
rotation to its siderial rotation to its orbital motion along with the
other planets and moon, to the oscillations of a caesium atom, but now
we know that this is unsteady also relative to pulsars which are the
most consistent timekeepers at present (although they sometimes have
quakes that change their periods).

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Igor and Ray:

First of all I want to appologize to the group for awkward etiquette in
deleting
Igor's comments, it was due to ignorance of the charter (rules), and not
out of malicious intent. I really do appreciate your thoughtful and
informed responses.

And I also want to thank Igor for his time as co-moderator for the group.

I do have an aversion to comments that are personal attacks, juvenile,
or vulgar -- makes me cringe each time I read the word 'idiot'!

In general, I will not post on a topic about which I am not at least
moderately
informed about--in that context, I anticipate even fairly sophisticated
theories and concepts in a variety of disciplines. As most laymen, I have
not applied rigorous mathematics to proofs but trust professionals who
have, (I prefer to read the original papers rather than anecdotal reviews
or summaries as I am sure you do). My professional background is in the
arts, architecture and marketing, now I am writing fiction for the first
time
and devoting more of my time to exhibiting (visual art).

As a writer I delve into topics covered here and other physics groups, it
is about the only place a two way dialogue on subjects that interest me
can be had--also corrections to technical details that I may not know.

So, when I pose a question, it may seem ill formed--it is not intended to be
a premise for a scientific theory or 'step 1' of formal analysis, but
rather,
hopefully, rhetorical, poetic, and a bit convoluted. You guys get enough
of the formal and well formed stuff anyhow.

And I might, add, even considering the 'ill formed' structure of the posit,
you both seemed to rise to the occassion effectively addres the pertinent
points.

It's a little case here of the artist poking the scientist, (not implying
that
you are not creative, I assure you, you work much much harder at your
proofs than I do at my insights.)

Kudos!

RHNL?GHD


"Ray Tomes" wrote in message
...
R. Henry Nigl wrote:
If gravity is a wave/particle, and 'time' is a function of it's
definition,
is 'time' also a wave/particle, or simply a synthetic, linear measure.

If not so, does time radiate?

Igor Khavkine wrote:
This is a perfect example of an ill posed question. Let me try to
explain why.

I agree that the question is not well posed. However, coming as I do
from a perspective of a study of cycles, I have interpreted a possible
different meaning to what you have.

I cannot say to what extent the following facts are due to gravity,
electromagnetism or some other force, only that the evidence for
periodicity (wave-like behaviour) exists on all time and distance scales.

The largest reported periodicity in space is a 590 million light year
spacing of super galactic clusters (based on the latest Hubble constant
of 71 km/s/Mpc). This corresponds to a quite commonly reported
geological cycle period of 586 million years and shows that there is
indeed some type of wave structure in both space and time of that period.

Another example is that 160 minute periods have been observed in active
galaxy nuclei by Russian astronomers and these correspond to the
expected gravitational wave oscillations of typical galactic black hole
sizes. Such a period is also observed in the Sun as an oscillation and
as an 80 light minute spacing (10 au) between the outer planets. The
halving of the distance may be attributed to there being two nodes per
wave. A 160 minute period oscillation seems to pervade the universe as
it shows up very significantly as a peek in a number of astronomical
period measurements such as binary stars.

Physicists assure me that gravitational waves are not strong enough for
the observed effects. In that case, as something is definitely going on,
we may have to conclude that new physics is needed.

As regards the question of linear measure of time, we can only count
events and compare to other event counts. On that basis we can say that
all measures of time do have fluctuations of various amounts. The
definition of time has gradually been revised from the earth's synodic
rotation to its siderial rotation to its orbital motion along with the
other planets and moon, to the oscillations of a caesium atom, but now
we know that this is unsteady also relative to pulsars which are the
most consistent timekeepers at present (although they sometimes have
quakes that change their periods).

--
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/

Can we safely agree that while the assertion that the Earth has some
kind of geologic periodicity of 586 million years is wrong, implying
the need for new physics based on a perceived coincidence between that
period and a supposed 590 million light-year displacement between some
unidentified pair of superclusters qualifies for Pauli's epithet of
"not even wrong"?

Periodicity? A constant? Which one?
RHNL

"Bryan F.E." wrote in message
ups.com...
Can we safely agree that while the assertion that the Earth has some
kind of geologic periodicity of 586 million years is wrong, implying
the need for new physics based on a perceived coincidence between that
period and a supposed 590 million light-year displacement between some
unidentified pair of superclusters qualifies for Pauli's epithet of
"not even wrong"?

Ray Tomes wrote:

Another example is that 160 minute periods have been observed in active
galaxy nuclei by Russian astronomers and these correspond to the
expected gravitational wave oscillations of typical galactic black hole
sizes. Such a period is also observed in the Sun as an oscillation and
as an 80 light minute spacing (10 au) between the outer planets. The
halving of the distance may be attributed to there being two nodes per
wave. A 160 minute period oscillation seems to pervade the universe as
it shows up very significantly as a peek in a number of astronomical
period measurements such as binary stars.


Are there any references to work identifying "160 minute period oscillations"
which "seem to pervade the universe"?

Richard Saam