Time

17.12.2017
Wheelers delayed choice experiment and
Third polarizer experiment, can only be explained by assuming that movement of photons will be in an indeterminate state, between certain points of it's travel path.

Say a photon coming to us is split into two entangled parts one part travels opposite direction away from earth, the other part toward earth. Now until we observers, the photon is in limbo.

I don't know yet the exact solution but have a feeling that the solution will have following qualities. Time is either fully or partially man made. Einstein's spooky action at distance, is because the flow of time has in that case. This may be due to inability of the concept of time to fall in line, or due to the fact time is man made and there are holes that cannot be patched.
We need to answer the question that action of celestial objects, for example the shining moon, and us seeing it cannot be explained without the concept of time. Flowing of a river and changes it makes to earth cannot depend upon a human being. The cause and effect of celestial bodies cannot depend on man. But the cause and effect of a marble striking another and movement of the second marble due to the impact, may be man made.
In Wheelers delayed choice experiment, when the observer is watching photon behaves like a particle and not watching behaves like a wave. The reason may be man made time flows when watching-it behaves like a particle and when not watching time flow stops and behave like a wave. This may be a perfect solution to the problem.

Then probability may be a part of it like in quantum mechanics. Probability of time flowing back can get externally slim as more and more events happen in a chain of events. Therefore we may have the concept of time. And man had imposed more of it's own concepts on top of the flow of time.

Apple falling from a tree, even if we want we can't reverse the direction. Therefore something is happening other than man. But the accelerator of falling may be a concept of man.

21.12.2017
A new idea struck me. Special Relativity involves only, bodies that are in uniform motion, no acceleration. If you think carefully, does uniform motion involves time. The concept of time is not necessary for uniform motion. Say a ball is in uniform motion. Well how do you  know it? We see that it moves in an uniform way. Still how do you it definitely? We make measurements. Isn't it that  when making measurements you disturb the uniform motion? So there is no uniform motion. Therefore bodies that move uniformly are irreverent to us. In bodies that move uniformly there is no flow of time. Time flows only when uniform motion is disturbed. It may be difficult to separate the two that is why we think time is an universal entity. Lot of recent experiments show that our upstanding of time is wrong. Polarisation(effect of the third polarizer, between two crossed polarizers), entangled particles, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment etc. To explain most of these phenomena we need messaging at infinite velocities. Infinite velocities is not necessary, if we adopt a different concept for time.

22.12.2017

Can time exist without counting. Counting is an integral part of time. But counting is man made. It is not a natural phenomena. You need numbers for counting. Numbers are man made.

Take two events, a photon is emitted from a source, until it is absorbed in another location, we can't say what happens in between. When it is observed by an observer, we know that time has passed between those two events. We need some type of a counter and a repetitive set of events to do this.
Within every two events there exists a set of other events and if you take any two events, from the set there will be another set of events. This is the usual definition of time.
But there are holes in this definition.
Let us examine what an world event is. It can be defined as when a force carrier particle like photon interact with another particle. When a photon moves from one place to another, assuming that it exists throughout the the full movement range, leads to lot of anomalies, like entangled particles and polarisation. What we can say is the photon was emitted at one place, and received at another place. Only after receiving we can say it travelled a time, distance divided by velocity of light. Though it can be theorized that photon exists in between, experimentally no such detection can be made. Detection will halt the motion.
If the above definition is correct there can be only a finite number of events fore a finite number of particles. Therefore you cannot go on indefinitely finding event sets within event sets.
This means there is no flow of time.

24.12.2017
Time and world events are related. Light emitted from an exited atom and then absorbed by another atom is a set (or two)of such events. We can define before and after by defining emitting is before and and absorbing is after.Then a series of repetitive events happen in between, say we can't identify before and after of these event set, but we can count the number of events. There is a correlation between this count and time taken for a photon to travel from the emitter to the absorber. Then when we analyze the repetitive event we need one reference point, to start and another to identify change,(without another there will be no change). Then there will be other repetitive events that can be counted, within a single, first mentioned, repetitive event. Regarding a repetitive event, how do you know something repeats? It will at least need one a matching mechanism then it will need memory. The memory will keep some information, and then the matching mechanism will match, the current information with that is in memory. It will flag only when a match is found. This algorithm might need more than this. But at least it need these.
But isn't we are referring to human mind to do this matching. So can time exist without human mind?
This system can go deep, but not indefinitely, because there are only limited particles in the universe.
Time is this system, therefore it is not a single isolated independent concept. It is made up of several concepts. Humans have learned to link these different concepts and created the concept of time. If TIME is properly analysed it can explain current thorny issues in physics. Linking relativity to quantum theory, explaining entangled particles and polarisation.
Einstein's special relativity states time is not universal but depends on reference frames. In a single reference frame time is uniform and same to all points and events happening in that reference frame. It need to go further. Time will be uniform and same to each different set of related events. It is different to different sets of events. That is why we see anomalies in explaining, entangled particle events, like delayed choice experiment, instant messaging of entangled particles, cross polarizer in three polarizer experiment etc.

26.12.2017
Counting - is it a universal entity that was not created by man. It is true in modern technology we can't live without counting. But historically it was not a necessity,  people lived long ago without counting. Mathematics is a creation not a discovery, Wittgenstein. Similarly repetitive events are not discovered, but created. Well works rotating, is it created or discovered.  Rotation existed before man. Man discovered something that existed. Or is it not? Is it a creation. Think deep of rotation. There are more qualities to it than we simply imagine.

Analogy of how brain analysed time. Suppose you go by car in a road for the first time, you will remember only very prominent land marks. For instance if you try to give directions to someone you can't, you may be able to say about prominent land marks only. But after going several times on the road, when you see land marks you will remember that you had seen it before in the road. But still you will not remember the order they appear. When you gain more experience going in that road, you will remember the order, and you will be able to clearly explain someone else directions.(Though this may not relevant- if you walk on the road instead going by car, you will remember in lesser trips).
This may be true for world time. Time may consist two concepts, one the events them the order of events. These are two independent concepts, that are combined to give the sense if time.

Time Trap

Time dilation verses time trap. Both can achieve the same result of moving clocks runs slower. Time trap may achieve it without the paradoxes.

In time dilation clock moving at speed v will run slower. In time trap some time is lost when the moving clock gains speed from zero to v, and then again when it decelerate. When measurement is made, moving clock has run slower. Anyway a proper measurement can be made only when both clocks are stationary in respect to each other. The drawback of this system is, the time dilation will be independent of the length of traveling.
But time trap may be possible to explain time dilation due to relativity and General Relativity.
What is the experimental result of time dilation and the duration of movement?

Time invariant systems

When a system do not absorb photons or emit photons, that system is time invariant. Take Brownian motion, here cause and effect do not exist.we can't say atom A struck atom B, and then B struck C. Here there is no flow of time. Electrons bound to an atom is the same, in it there is no flow of time. That's why we refer to the electron as a probability wave or cloud. Time is invariant to what happens there.

Then consider two entangled photons or electrons, there is no flow of time within the system of two electrons or photons. This system breaks when the spin of one electron is measured. Until the measurement there is no flow. So even is the two electrons are far apart, since there was no flow of time, to the system they are together. Since when the system started they were together, and ended when the measurement is made they are together.

Time has two aspects, one is man made. Our brains have created the concept of time. We see that when marble A strikes marble B, B starts to move. Our brain sees that the strike happened before and causes the movement of B started after that. Then you will ask explosion of a supernova, is it happens in our brain. We sees the moon shine dies that happen in our brain. In these cases there is a flow of time.

For time to flow the system should be unstable. There should be an outflow of energy. Therefore it is not possible to reverse it, they is only one way flow.

So events of time is partly made by brain. Other part out flow of energy gives the direction of flow. The brain, our teachings or upbringing and may be also our genes gives us the direction of flow of time.

Loosely coupled Time

The time as we understand is very tightly coupled. That is well defined. In other words before and after is well defined. We know for sure which happened first and which happens next. But it's it? Quantum theory disputes it. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can never simultaneously know the exact position and the exact speed of an object. Then time is not tightly defined or it is loosely defined.

The principal I propose is, we cannot exactly state which happened first and which happened next. But, we can state a loosely coupled set of events happen first and before another loosely coupled set of events.

Time is a loose concept. Our brains makes it well defined.

Special Relativity attempts to make time and also space well defined. It tries to give formulas to couple what happened in one frame by another moving frame.
Quantum theory approach is different, it accepts that time is not well defined.  The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the Schrödinger's cat is simultaneously alive 
and dead. The problem is, tightly defined concept of simultaneous.

Suppose the concept of time is something cooked in our brains, we can ask how can we see a star explodes to become a supernova and then a black hole. It is not correct to say time does not exist at all. Time is loosely  coupled, therefore, these happenings, from a star to supernova and then black hole, we cannot say which happens first, but this set of events happened before some other set of events.

Ignored factors on speed of light

It is an excepted fact that speed of light is constant in vacuum. It's it correct? I find following factors are ignored. In physics the word speed is rarely mentioned accept in special relativity. The usual word is velocity. Velocity is speed with direction. Speed of a car is mentioned when the car travels in an irregular route, dividing the distance traveled from the time taken. Speed is a loose concept, most physics equations have velocity.

It is an accepted fact that speed of light varies with the medium. It is slower in air than in vacuum, then much slower in water. According to quantum theory vacuum is not wholly void. Dark matter and dark energy can also be present. To use in an universal theory like special relativity, it should be more constant.

So far all accurate measurement of speed of light was done by measuring light from a fixed source and a fixed observer, with no displacement between the source and observer. Michelson interferometer is used to prove nonexistence of a medium to transport electromagnetic waves. It also proves that light had a fixed velocity when the source and observer are fixed, but both moves in unison.

It is a fundamental mistake to jump into the conclusion that speed of light is  constant everywhere. For instance light coming from the sun when it moves towards us may be faster than when it moves out. These need to be checked before coming to a conclusion.

Red shift of stars may be explained by time dilation and length contraction, but a simpler explanation may be variance of velocity of light. (It may not be exotic, it may be mundane, and it may be correct)

In explanations of special relativity observer and source of light are very loosely defined. For instance in the explanation of lightning striking at two ends of the train, the source can be fixed to the platform or may be moving with the train. These two factors are irrelevant to the outcome of the thought experiment.
Further the observer on the platform sees the two lighting strikes are simultaneous, but for the observer on the train the lightning in front occurs before the lightning the rear. This can be explained by light from front travels faster than the light from rear. Special relativity uses time dilation and length contraction to explain this. But is it necessary? There can't be a correlation between the two observers because each observer sees different set of photons in there respective observations.

Velocity of light may be constant with respect of the source, irrespective of it's movement. But in special relativity it is loosely defined, that it is constant both to source and observer irrespective to the movement between the observer and source. The reason that it will give contradictions is, it is possible to have multiple observers that move relative to each other and observing the same source(say different persons who move about each other looking at the sun ). Then how can it be speed of light is constant between each pair?

It may be difficult but not impossible to measure velocity of light that come from moving stars. This measurement should be pure. In this measurement you cannot use mirrors, because the source can shift to the mirror. A photon is emitted when electron changes it's obit. This photon is related to the atom that emits it. We need to see velocity of this photon by a moving observer. If the photon is disturbed in any way the source might shift, therefore we need to be careful in this measurement. I feel most of the measurements done up to now has ignored this factor.

Measuring speed of light

From all hetero known phenomena that travels, light is the fastest. Therefore it is not possible to measure speed of light using other methods. Only light can be used to measure it. What can be done is to mirror back a bean of light and measure the time taken to travel the known distance. This is the usual methods employed in all scientific measurement of speed of light. This is employed in the famous Michelson Morally experiment that predicts speed of light is constant everywhere irrespective of your moment at constant speeds.

But there is a contradiction in applying this. Say a light ray coming from sun, if it travels towards me at constant speed c, that ray before reaching me need to know me speed. Say I am traveling at speed v at the time the ray started to be emitted from sun, then the ray should be traveling at speed c irrespective me speed v. Suppose all is good so far, but if I change my speed to v', how does the ray know to travel towards me at speed c without knowing I have changed my speed. Forget reference frames and special relativity for a moment, my change of speed from v to v', should bring out some sort of change in the photon to keep it at the same speed c, before and after the change. The photon need to know the change I made to my speed, or else it is not to change it's speed. So a signal at infinite speed need to communicate the change to the photon.
It is important to point out that in all light measuring apparatus, an observer is involved at the time the photon is emitted and when the final measurement is made. That way the message of observer speed is indirectly passed on to the photon. So we may be able to assume that whenever an observer is involved in measuring speed of light, it has a constant speed c relative to the observer.

Then what can we say about a ray of light coming from the sun. What we can say is that it is un-measurable.