User:JCNSmith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reading, thinking, and occasionally writing about the fundamental nature of time have been my avocation and passion for the past 40 or more years. During that time, I gradually have amassed some thoughts on the topic which I believe are original, constructive, and, best of all, "correct," whatever that may mean in the context of science and/or philosophy; I personally take it to mean that these ideas currently are the best available explanation for observed phenomena, with the understanding that they will remain so only until someone comes along with a better, more comprehensive explanation, which presumably would then subsume all previous "best explanations." Should anyone be interested, a relatively brief essay setting forth some of my ideas can be found at http://smithjcn.googlepages.com/time.
Should anyone who happens to encounter these ideas here or elsewhere find them helpful I would be greatly pleased. I personally am convinced that more than a few of the frustrating conceptual logjams and long-standing dilemmas currently impeding progress in modern physics might yield more readily if only those trying to resolve them were armed with a better understanding of the fundamental nature of time.
Moreover, I'm convinced that there is a serious logical flaw in what is euphemistically known as the "operational" definition of time, i.e., "time is that which is measured by clocks," which currently serves as a fundamental underpinning of physics. Ask someone who holds this operational definition of time what a clock is and you'll likely hear, basically, that "a clock is that which measures time." A bit of circular reasoning? I'd say so! Those observant enough to notice this problem often do their best to camouflage the difficulty by obfuscation: "clocks are mechanisms based on regular, cyclical motion," or something of the sort. But in order to determine whether motion actually is "regular" or not what would one need? Yes, of course, a clock! Again, a circularity.
Despite what I believe is the seriously flawed, circular reasoning inherent in the so-called "operational" definition of time, most mainstream, contemporary physicists, to the extent that they have given it any thought at all, appear to have bought into the concept. A few, such as Brian Greene, verge on admitting to a bit of discomfort with the operational definition, but apparently having no better alternative, have nevertheless gone along with it. A few other physicists, such as Julian Barbour, for example, and I would like to include myself in this relatively small group, are seeking a better alternative. Mainstream physicists, however, have not warmly welcomed messengers proclaiming that, in essence, the "emperor," i.e., the currently prevailing operational definition of time, is naked. Anyone caring to learn more about my proposed alternative to the operational definition of time is invited to read the essay to be found at the link given above.
When we observe that the logic of a key underpinning of contemporary physics is seriously flawed, should it then come as any great surprise that there is an unexplained and intractable disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics, for example? I think not! JCNSmith 00:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
