Singularitarian
6th September 2009, 03:08 PM
The Laws are Incomprehensible, We are just no Einstein's!
''The most incomprehensible thing is that the universe is comprehensible,'' Albert Einstein
According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times. To get around our misunderstandings we can apply some rather ridiculas examples to explain how we are supposed to envision situations.
To explain this 'superpositioning' in the very beginning, I’m going to use a classic analogy - one you may have heard of, or seen in cartoons; it is the 100 monkeys all typing away randomly on type writers... statistics says, that if you give these hypothetical monkeys long enough, they will eventually write a famous piece of work, like Shakespeare's, 'A Midsummer Nights Dream...'
Now, you can imagine these monkeys being the equivalent of the universe 15 billion years ago - bare with me on this, as bizarre as it might sound - imagine that these random pushing’s of buttons resembled the universe at time zero, a attentively flicking through all possible start up positions.
You can think about the statistics with the monkeys for a second. The chances they would create a 'Shakespearean' play runs into billions upon billions upon billions - almost unthinkable numbers - granted, that the monkeys would eventually do so, in the matter of 10 years, to 10 billion years. The product of this play, is equivalent to the product of everything visible today. Whether one considers the start up condition chosen by the universe as nothing but a fluke, or some divine purpose or otherwise, it is truly remarkable.
This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them.
Gods Resevior
And so all this potential i speak of was resident somehow before the big bang came into existence. We cannot be meaning however that there is some time associated to the potential that existed, because time itself had not even begun as remained a dorment mesh of virtual reality itself. The appearance of matter and energy in the universe implied to the simultaneous existence of the universe.
What caused the existence to appear would then seem to be some statistical change in this field which describes the entire state vector possibilities of the universe. What triggered such an audacious act? Fluke again perhaps?
This potnetial sea still exists with us today, hidden within the universe existing in an ethereal virtual state. This density of energy covers every corner of the universe, and is called the zero-point field. Somehow this field, having all the properties necessery to create reality as we know it today, give birth to every peice of matter in the universe. In fact, every entity or notion or concept ultimately arises from this potential sea. The BEST way to imagine this potentia before any resolution in the sudden appearance of time and
space is to understand that the potential ingredients did not scope over any real dimesions, it did not take up any space or time to have this potential stuff, not did it exist in a void or any vacuum. It's completely ellusive nature before the appearance of big bang makes it one of the most difficult concepts to believe. How can something that doesn't really exist, still give rise to something which does?
In many ways, for any believers in some intelligent Grand Creation, then the being responsible used this potential in one of the most remarkable ways. The being must have decided to initiate this universe over all the other possible-known universes because this universe was just consistent to make life. Even Hawking not too long ago admitted that we might need to start accepting that an Anthropic Principle model of quantum mechanics is inescapable.
The conclusions are bizarre. We can have a potential sea of everything needed to create the universe, but it never really existed - it's so imaginary on every level that nothingness pervaded the void, and then it wasn't so suddenly and spontaneously, so it might it be that something with a little more substance could have existed before the big bang? I seriously doubt that the current model of what existed before the big bang (which really accounts to nothing) seems to be wrong in our understandings through the logic we entertain the
theory with, because obviously this ''nothingness'' was in fact the ''everything-ness'' that was required to set to the initial laws and expansion of the universe. Using this same logic, we begin to have some idea as to what might be required; a multidimensional infinite pool where our universe happens to be an emergent property of this everything-ness.
The Time Before Time
One major problem is our language; even though in the dictionary there are approximately 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words, and whilst they equally make a wide range of vocabulary, the essential descriptions we give the standard laws of the physical universe concerning big bang break down - as though being a conceptual error of understanding because of the words we use. A good example was given above explaining how the nothingness of the universe before big bang was practically the everything-ness that was required
to have the universe emerge as a vacuum. Yes, our language makes our descriptions hard to fathom, theoretically and conceptually. So where our language can degrade our chances of making sense of the deep metaphysical and philosophical roots of physics, we need to find new ways as to explain our models without any conceptual-breakdowns. It won't be easy, and it's task i decided to take on myself as to understand a better model for explaining existence in terms of a big bang.
Instead of saying that there is nothing before the beginning of time, it might be best that time has actually been around for an infinity. If we allow our universe which is a four-dimensional manifold to be an ''object'' that floats around in a multidimensional pool, then we have ourselves a theory where time has actually persisted forever, and that the emergence of our universe is of some ''shatter'' in the multidimensional pool, analogous to breaking on mirror into many different but smaller parts, and those parts which represent the four
dimensions that we personally observe and experience are but the larger shards of a much more complex and compactified structure in the emergent properties of the spacetime vacuum. In fact, this is what string theory models have been trying to do, by describing the universe in terms of superpositioned universes of a much larger spacetime hierarchy of dimensions, and by allowing the universe to have these extra dimensions, we may speculate that the universe is not simply floating around in nothing, but rather floating in a much more complicated
spacetime realm, one with possibly an infinite amount of dimensions - But M-Theories 11 dimensions would suffice obviously.
You can have the model two ways. Treat spacetime normally with four dimensions, but being an emergent object from a much more complicated realm of dimensions, or you can have the same amount of dimensions (so long as its not an infinity of them) which make the pool, and simply apply the normal interpretational model which string theory models give, such as these dimensions exist hidden from us in this universe because they where compactified by some catastrophic event. Hyperspace theory states exactly this... But, what is hyperspace theory?
Before the Big Bang, it states that our universe had ten dimensions, just like superstring theory predicts. Then, very suddenly, the universe 'cracked', and our universe was born. This cataclysmic event allowed our 4-dimensional space to expand, whilst our twin 6-dimensional universe contracted in a volatile manor, and shrank to infinitesimal size. In fact, we find that the Ekpyrotic Theory evidently goes hand-in-hand with this hypothesis. If hyperspace theory is correct, then it can explain that the current observable rapid expansion
of the universe was a result of the cataclysm - thus, the death of our universe, which will most possibly be caused by rapid expansion causing the 'Big Chill', may in fact be caused by the cracking of multi-dimensional spacetime.
Using the idea however that perhaps spacetime truely is four-dimensional which would be most rational since they are obviously there and contending that it's like a four dimensionsional object floating about in a multidimensional pool is quite a strange thing to imagine, if one can. If someone could observe the universe moving through this place, it would be remarkably wierd where the dimensions twist and curl and defy normal understandings. For instance, if i decided to take a strole in the fifth dimension according to string theory, i can find
myself moving forward just to end up where i began? Wierd or what? Whilst the fifth dimension is an electromagnetic dimension, the hypothetical sixth dimension can even be entire baby universes themselves, with their own reality of matter and gas! The laws would seem strange indeed and the universe would certainly not move through it in any linear sense. What is even more interesting, is that it would imply Einstein was wrong about the universe being a self-contained object as with such a model, you can now apply the universe relative to something else;
the mulidimensional pool in which the droplet of this universe was extracted.
I do not even want to attempt to think about a model other that incoporates time as existing like it does today without some primal beginning to it, even because the beginning of the universe is being more consistently proven with each passing observation of the cosmos. But i am heavily open to the idea that time could have existed before the initial beginning of this universe, just in a different form, in a much more complex form or forms since more than one time-dimension is very consistent with theory. Remember, the variation of the theory
i believe in does not encorporate any more than the four dimensions in this universe, but can suggest that it is a droplet from a much larger sea. An excellent discussion is present here in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7598996.stm where doctor cox explains some of the idea's following the exploration of a multidimensional bulk.
In the string theory brane model, this universe does interact with the other universes via gravitational forces, but since my theory neglects the use having these extra dimensions within this manifold, then it might invoke a whole new meaning, where our universe does not interact with any physical meaning with possibly other universes, unless through some process we might come to expect, like a quantum tunelling from one universe to another. In fact, i believe the universes did at least at one time interact with each other. Let me explain.
I showed how you can have all the essential ingredients for spacetime to exist in a potential sea, but also imagine this sea existing as a multidimensional bulk where at one point some collision between two universes (or branes) happened. You could allow the extra dimensions of spacetime to disappear completely with a compactification of the extra dimensions to infinitely small sizes to being non-existent alltogether. The only reason why its not beneficial however in string theory to make these extra dimensions disappear entirely is due to the hopeful
answering of why gravity is so weak in this universe. So instead of compactifying them before nothing was left, string theorists compactified them on scales we cannot even measure yet, but they are there, according to the theory. In my interpretation, they are there no longer because they where once part of the multidimensional bulk, but upon interaction between the two universes caused them to shatter the multidimensional bulk as to completely identify a four dimensionsional vacuum emerging from it rather than one which seems to have these dimensions at
ridiculously-small levels. I like Brane theory, and the evolution of this universe is actually limiteless in the possibilities that may arise, and whatmore, they can involve initial beginnings of important events while still retaining a mother-principle which states that they are only the beginnings of changes, not the beginning of the dimensionsional origins themselves, because they can neatly remain eternal.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/Discover0204.pdf
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5D81431F934A35751C1A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3
What of the Time in this Universe then and the Time contained in the Bulk?
And so, if there is a multidimensional bulk, then we might also be able to have the time in our universe flow afterall. The problem with the idea of a time dimension which flows is that of the question of what it moves relative to... In my studies, the psychological principle clearly illustrates that time is relative to the observer when perception of time in its linear fashion is investigated. But the time dimension which makes the four-way manifold of this universe could be applied to a completely static dimensional bulk acting itself like an absolute
aether as though the universe itself is sitting on the wall of an aether field - which is a unique and i think new way to interpret the dimensional bulk. It would also answer why we haven't detected an absolute aether in experimentations, because our universe is not actually composed of any absolute aether, but is in fact cast upon a static changeless dimensional sea, from out of which emerges systems which do change internally, despite the Wheeler-de Witt equation.
Our universes time would be moving relative to a static time dimension, maybe many of them which consist of the bulk beyond the boundaries of the spacetime fabric. A study of my essay on time would suggest that time could certainly have these relative conditions to them. It would be hard to consistently say however that the static nature external of the universe would be hard to differentiate between the static models of this universe we have today... in fact, they would be indestinguishable, since we can statically-model the univere in a flash instant
present time method, where reality can be seen from a quantized temporal viewpoint, unleashing many important area's of discussion, again, most of these where covered in my essay and theory on the fundamental line of flux theory of time. The essay also covered why physicists today do not believe that time has a flow fundamentally (and some credit has gone to this young man http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html ) who applied the principle logically and showed how objects cannot have defined positions using the start-and-stop nature
of the universe. So from here, we are going to explore the nature of time from the invention of the bulk theory and what static dimensions of time would mean for the universe at large.
The Incredible Bulk
Peter Lynd, who shot to fame with his theory on time in the link previously given says, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity."
I want to argue that his point is flawed on the basis of biasm contained within which mathematical theory one decides to use to model the two different shifts in the universe, the geometric time and the fundamental time. Both exist, so one cannot be biased as to say time must be a physical quantity and therefore a static time dimension is impossible to have, because it would imply a static instant of physical time... however, if one admits to the existence of time in more than one form, then time may be considered as being geometric and fundemental, not to
mention static and non-static. As i said before, you can't ignore the laws of the universe, nor can one correctly describe the universe without a model of flow to time relative in respect to our experience of it, so something must give, even in Lynd's groundbreaking conclusions on physical instances.
Whilst i disagree with his absolution on his theory based on the previous statement he made concerning no static dimension of time, you can actually solve this problem by inviting a second time dimension, one that is static and lives alonside the imaginary timelike dimension of space we more commonly expect to call a non-static dimension of time. It would require mathematically an extra dimension of space too, but then you can have an adaquate theory of time which solves his problem without reducing the theory to the conclusion he had. But despite this, he has
not only shot to fame, but his theories on time and consciousness are gaining more and more attention, and have themselves important implications if correct, here is some of his work:
http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/plcs.pdf
http://necsi.org/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf
So in a sense, the solution i provided closely relates this to the Two-Time Dimensional physics by Doctor Bars with Lynd's conclusions which i believe can be solved by simply allowing the required dimensions without the unecessery paradoxes he attempts to solve, but i feel, erreneously. Even though his arguement i based on the specifics of not actually having an object possess a momenta if time where in a frozen featureless state, also meaning it would not have a position is actually very correct, but only touches on the theory of instantaneous fleeting flashes of existence in time theory
only very timidly. Truth is some very important factors are required to argue that every single statistical average in the universe past and future do exist simultaneously as present frames of time when the mathematics of quantizing space and time are taken into consideration. Time is indeed physical, despite what lynd claims, it just takes on a much smaller role - the consistency of upholding a physical fluctuation in any given amount of time, even in the smallest we could calculate 5.3(10^{-44}). So, to tell the truth, i've always been a fan of modifying
theories, but only when modification truely is required, and the modification itself is simple, but should not be any more harder; so the invitation of two new dimensions that are static in nature, one of the temporal and the other spatial can add the detail in the physical models we require to solve some very basic problems in the conceptualization of time in physics.
[excerpt note] - even though the geometric time theory can be argued not to be fundamental and thus implying the final theory to be dressed in the quantized version are only fooling themselves. For a unification of physics one would need to also why geomnetric time seems like an emergent property of the quantization of the vacuum itself.
''The most incomprehensible thing is that the universe is comprehensible,'' Albert Einstein
According to Quantum Physics, because there was no observer around at Big Bang, all possible start-up positions had to arise side-by-side, because no resolution was ever made to distinguish one from another. Now, physics can be a bit tedious at times. To get around our misunderstandings we can apply some rather ridiculas examples to explain how we are supposed to envision situations.
To explain this 'superpositioning' in the very beginning, I’m going to use a classic analogy - one you may have heard of, or seen in cartoons; it is the 100 monkeys all typing away randomly on type writers... statistics says, that if you give these hypothetical monkeys long enough, they will eventually write a famous piece of work, like Shakespeare's, 'A Midsummer Nights Dream...'
Now, you can imagine these monkeys being the equivalent of the universe 15 billion years ago - bare with me on this, as bizarre as it might sound - imagine that these random pushing’s of buttons resembled the universe at time zero, a attentively flicking through all possible start up positions.
You can think about the statistics with the monkeys for a second. The chances they would create a 'Shakespearean' play runs into billions upon billions upon billions - almost unthinkable numbers - granted, that the monkeys would eventually do so, in the matter of 10 years, to 10 billion years. The product of this play, is equivalent to the product of everything visible today. Whether one considers the start up condition chosen by the universe as nothing but a fluke, or some divine purpose or otherwise, it is truly remarkable.
This superpositioning at the beginning means that every outcome lay as a potential, totally superimposed upon each other, like layers on a cake - an infinite amount of them.
Gods Resevior
And so all this potential i speak of was resident somehow before the big bang came into existence. We cannot be meaning however that there is some time associated to the potential that existed, because time itself had not even begun as remained a dorment mesh of virtual reality itself. The appearance of matter and energy in the universe implied to the simultaneous existence of the universe.
What caused the existence to appear would then seem to be some statistical change in this field which describes the entire state vector possibilities of the universe. What triggered such an audacious act? Fluke again perhaps?
This potnetial sea still exists with us today, hidden within the universe existing in an ethereal virtual state. This density of energy covers every corner of the universe, and is called the zero-point field. Somehow this field, having all the properties necessery to create reality as we know it today, give birth to every peice of matter in the universe. In fact, every entity or notion or concept ultimately arises from this potential sea. The BEST way to imagine this potentia before any resolution in the sudden appearance of time and
space is to understand that the potential ingredients did not scope over any real dimesions, it did not take up any space or time to have this potential stuff, not did it exist in a void or any vacuum. It's completely ellusive nature before the appearance of big bang makes it one of the most difficult concepts to believe. How can something that doesn't really exist, still give rise to something which does?
In many ways, for any believers in some intelligent Grand Creation, then the being responsible used this potential in one of the most remarkable ways. The being must have decided to initiate this universe over all the other possible-known universes because this universe was just consistent to make life. Even Hawking not too long ago admitted that we might need to start accepting that an Anthropic Principle model of quantum mechanics is inescapable.
The conclusions are bizarre. We can have a potential sea of everything needed to create the universe, but it never really existed - it's so imaginary on every level that nothingness pervaded the void, and then it wasn't so suddenly and spontaneously, so it might it be that something with a little more substance could have existed before the big bang? I seriously doubt that the current model of what existed before the big bang (which really accounts to nothing) seems to be wrong in our understandings through the logic we entertain the
theory with, because obviously this ''nothingness'' was in fact the ''everything-ness'' that was required to set to the initial laws and expansion of the universe. Using this same logic, we begin to have some idea as to what might be required; a multidimensional infinite pool where our universe happens to be an emergent property of this everything-ness.
The Time Before Time
One major problem is our language; even though in the dictionary there are approximately 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words, and whilst they equally make a wide range of vocabulary, the essential descriptions we give the standard laws of the physical universe concerning big bang break down - as though being a conceptual error of understanding because of the words we use. A good example was given above explaining how the nothingness of the universe before big bang was practically the everything-ness that was required
to have the universe emerge as a vacuum. Yes, our language makes our descriptions hard to fathom, theoretically and conceptually. So where our language can degrade our chances of making sense of the deep metaphysical and philosophical roots of physics, we need to find new ways as to explain our models without any conceptual-breakdowns. It won't be easy, and it's task i decided to take on myself as to understand a better model for explaining existence in terms of a big bang.
Instead of saying that there is nothing before the beginning of time, it might be best that time has actually been around for an infinity. If we allow our universe which is a four-dimensional manifold to be an ''object'' that floats around in a multidimensional pool, then we have ourselves a theory where time has actually persisted forever, and that the emergence of our universe is of some ''shatter'' in the multidimensional pool, analogous to breaking on mirror into many different but smaller parts, and those parts which represent the four
dimensions that we personally observe and experience are but the larger shards of a much more complex and compactified structure in the emergent properties of the spacetime vacuum. In fact, this is what string theory models have been trying to do, by describing the universe in terms of superpositioned universes of a much larger spacetime hierarchy of dimensions, and by allowing the universe to have these extra dimensions, we may speculate that the universe is not simply floating around in nothing, but rather floating in a much more complicated
spacetime realm, one with possibly an infinite amount of dimensions - But M-Theories 11 dimensions would suffice obviously.
You can have the model two ways. Treat spacetime normally with four dimensions, but being an emergent object from a much more complicated realm of dimensions, or you can have the same amount of dimensions (so long as its not an infinity of them) which make the pool, and simply apply the normal interpretational model which string theory models give, such as these dimensions exist hidden from us in this universe because they where compactified by some catastrophic event. Hyperspace theory states exactly this... But, what is hyperspace theory?
Before the Big Bang, it states that our universe had ten dimensions, just like superstring theory predicts. Then, very suddenly, the universe 'cracked', and our universe was born. This cataclysmic event allowed our 4-dimensional space to expand, whilst our twin 6-dimensional universe contracted in a volatile manor, and shrank to infinitesimal size. In fact, we find that the Ekpyrotic Theory evidently goes hand-in-hand with this hypothesis. If hyperspace theory is correct, then it can explain that the current observable rapid expansion
of the universe was a result of the cataclysm - thus, the death of our universe, which will most possibly be caused by rapid expansion causing the 'Big Chill', may in fact be caused by the cracking of multi-dimensional spacetime.
Using the idea however that perhaps spacetime truely is four-dimensional which would be most rational since they are obviously there and contending that it's like a four dimensionsional object floating about in a multidimensional pool is quite a strange thing to imagine, if one can. If someone could observe the universe moving through this place, it would be remarkably wierd where the dimensions twist and curl and defy normal understandings. For instance, if i decided to take a strole in the fifth dimension according to string theory, i can find
myself moving forward just to end up where i began? Wierd or what? Whilst the fifth dimension is an electromagnetic dimension, the hypothetical sixth dimension can even be entire baby universes themselves, with their own reality of matter and gas! The laws would seem strange indeed and the universe would certainly not move through it in any linear sense. What is even more interesting, is that it would imply Einstein was wrong about the universe being a self-contained object as with such a model, you can now apply the universe relative to something else;
the mulidimensional pool in which the droplet of this universe was extracted.
I do not even want to attempt to think about a model other that incoporates time as existing like it does today without some primal beginning to it, even because the beginning of the universe is being more consistently proven with each passing observation of the cosmos. But i am heavily open to the idea that time could have existed before the initial beginning of this universe, just in a different form, in a much more complex form or forms since more than one time-dimension is very consistent with theory. Remember, the variation of the theory
i believe in does not encorporate any more than the four dimensions in this universe, but can suggest that it is a droplet from a much larger sea. An excellent discussion is present here in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7598996.stm where doctor cox explains some of the idea's following the exploration of a multidimensional bulk.
In the string theory brane model, this universe does interact with the other universes via gravitational forces, but since my theory neglects the use having these extra dimensions within this manifold, then it might invoke a whole new meaning, where our universe does not interact with any physical meaning with possibly other universes, unless through some process we might come to expect, like a quantum tunelling from one universe to another. In fact, i believe the universes did at least at one time interact with each other. Let me explain.
I showed how you can have all the essential ingredients for spacetime to exist in a potential sea, but also imagine this sea existing as a multidimensional bulk where at one point some collision between two universes (or branes) happened. You could allow the extra dimensions of spacetime to disappear completely with a compactification of the extra dimensions to infinitely small sizes to being non-existent alltogether. The only reason why its not beneficial however in string theory to make these extra dimensions disappear entirely is due to the hopeful
answering of why gravity is so weak in this universe. So instead of compactifying them before nothing was left, string theorists compactified them on scales we cannot even measure yet, but they are there, according to the theory. In my interpretation, they are there no longer because they where once part of the multidimensional bulk, but upon interaction between the two universes caused them to shatter the multidimensional bulk as to completely identify a four dimensionsional vacuum emerging from it rather than one which seems to have these dimensions at
ridiculously-small levels. I like Brane theory, and the evolution of this universe is actually limiteless in the possibilities that may arise, and whatmore, they can involve initial beginnings of important events while still retaining a mother-principle which states that they are only the beginnings of changes, not the beginning of the dimensionsional origins themselves, because they can neatly remain eternal.
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/Discover0204.pdf
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5D81431F934A35751C1A9629C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3
What of the Time in this Universe then and the Time contained in the Bulk?
And so, if there is a multidimensional bulk, then we might also be able to have the time in our universe flow afterall. The problem with the idea of a time dimension which flows is that of the question of what it moves relative to... In my studies, the psychological principle clearly illustrates that time is relative to the observer when perception of time in its linear fashion is investigated. But the time dimension which makes the four-way manifold of this universe could be applied to a completely static dimensional bulk acting itself like an absolute
aether as though the universe itself is sitting on the wall of an aether field - which is a unique and i think new way to interpret the dimensional bulk. It would also answer why we haven't detected an absolute aether in experimentations, because our universe is not actually composed of any absolute aether, but is in fact cast upon a static changeless dimensional sea, from out of which emerges systems which do change internally, despite the Wheeler-de Witt equation.
Our universes time would be moving relative to a static time dimension, maybe many of them which consist of the bulk beyond the boundaries of the spacetime fabric. A study of my essay on time would suggest that time could certainly have these relative conditions to them. It would be hard to consistently say however that the static nature external of the universe would be hard to differentiate between the static models of this universe we have today... in fact, they would be indestinguishable, since we can statically-model the univere in a flash instant
present time method, where reality can be seen from a quantized temporal viewpoint, unleashing many important area's of discussion, again, most of these where covered in my essay and theory on the fundamental line of flux theory of time. The essay also covered why physicists today do not believe that time has a flow fundamentally (and some credit has gone to this young man http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/time_theory_030806.html ) who applied the principle logically and showed how objects cannot have defined positions using the start-and-stop nature
of the universe. So from here, we are going to explore the nature of time from the invention of the bulk theory and what static dimensions of time would mean for the universe at large.
The Incredible Bulk
Peter Lynd, who shot to fame with his theory on time in the link previously given says, "If the universe were frozen static at such an instant, this would be a precise static instant of time -- time would be a physical quantity."
I want to argue that his point is flawed on the basis of biasm contained within which mathematical theory one decides to use to model the two different shifts in the universe, the geometric time and the fundamental time. Both exist, so one cannot be biased as to say time must be a physical quantity and therefore a static time dimension is impossible to have, because it would imply a static instant of physical time... however, if one admits to the existence of time in more than one form, then time may be considered as being geometric and fundemental, not to
mention static and non-static. As i said before, you can't ignore the laws of the universe, nor can one correctly describe the universe without a model of flow to time relative in respect to our experience of it, so something must give, even in Lynd's groundbreaking conclusions on physical instances.
Whilst i disagree with his absolution on his theory based on the previous statement he made concerning no static dimension of time, you can actually solve this problem by inviting a second time dimension, one that is static and lives alonside the imaginary timelike dimension of space we more commonly expect to call a non-static dimension of time. It would require mathematically an extra dimension of space too, but then you can have an adaquate theory of time which solves his problem without reducing the theory to the conclusion he had. But despite this, he has
not only shot to fame, but his theories on time and consciousness are gaining more and more attention, and have themselves important implications if correct, here is some of his work:
http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/plcs.pdf
http://necsi.org/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf
So in a sense, the solution i provided closely relates this to the Two-Time Dimensional physics by Doctor Bars with Lynd's conclusions which i believe can be solved by simply allowing the required dimensions without the unecessery paradoxes he attempts to solve, but i feel, erreneously. Even though his arguement i based on the specifics of not actually having an object possess a momenta if time where in a frozen featureless state, also meaning it would not have a position is actually very correct, but only touches on the theory of instantaneous fleeting flashes of existence in time theory
only very timidly. Truth is some very important factors are required to argue that every single statistical average in the universe past and future do exist simultaneously as present frames of time when the mathematics of quantizing space and time are taken into consideration. Time is indeed physical, despite what lynd claims, it just takes on a much smaller role - the consistency of upholding a physical fluctuation in any given amount of time, even in the smallest we could calculate 5.3(10^{-44}). So, to tell the truth, i've always been a fan of modifying
theories, but only when modification truely is required, and the modification itself is simple, but should not be any more harder; so the invitation of two new dimensions that are static in nature, one of the temporal and the other spatial can add the detail in the physical models we require to solve some very basic problems in the conceptualization of time in physics.
[excerpt note] - even though the geometric time theory can be argued not to be fundamental and thus implying the final theory to be dressed in the quantized version are only fooling themselves. For a unification of physics one would need to also why geomnetric time seems like an emergent property of the quantization of the vacuum itself.