I I am a student of philosophy and have written a paper on the subject of Time. The conclusions bring me into the heart of physics, thermodynamics, entropy etc. The paper has been reviewed and returned to me with a number of questions in Physics that need to be addressed. I don't feel I have sufficient skills in this area to address them adequately. Therefore I am seeking contact with some person with a background in this area to collaborate with and help bring the weak parts of the paper, identified by the review, up to strength. Please feel free to contact me if interested. Payment or collaboration open for discussion. (Budget selected here is the default option and should not be considered fixed)
Here are the comments from the review, If you feel this is within your area of competencies to work on such a paper let me know and we can discuss the original paper. I show this just to let you know that my English and writing skills are good. But making my arguments clear in the area of physics is my weakness. Some research and discussion will no doubt be needed to get my arguments clear and unambiguous. In the paper I make parallels between the philosophy of time, concepts of past, present and future etc. on one hand and on the other, the action of energy, big bang, potential, kinetic energy, entropy etc. n the universe. If this is you area of expertise I welcome your offer. Frank
Review comments hereunder:
The manuscript reads easily and is of high level English. The clear examples makes it easier to understand the meaning of the texts and adds up to the understanding of the author’s arguments. The abstract is brief and explains the outline of the introduction, but lacks the hypothesis and conclusion. The amount of references is minimal and mostly used for the introduction of the text and for reciting the commonly accepted theories in physics and unfortunately not for supporting the arguments in the text. Confusingly the author provides captions for the figures in the text and afterwards also a title and description.
In general the introduction and hypothesis are easy to read and even though it lacks equations, the Chapter 2 Hypothesis makes sense. Unfortunately the chapter 2 Hypothesis doesn’t contain any hypothesis.
The mini Chapter 2.1 Assumptions are generally accepted concepts in physics and don’t add up to the manuscript.
In Chapter 3.1 the arguments are correct, but the conclusion drawn is incorrect. The fact that that each object experiences time different, time is not really a property and even if, from the fact that objects have energy and time, it does not follow that time is a property of energy. One can argue with the Einstein Field Equations that local spacetime curvature equates with local energy and momentum. The argumentation is very weak in this chapter.
In Chapter 3.2 I do not understand why an action must continue until equilibrium is achieved or all potential energy is exhausted. Earlier the author defines an action as energy changing from potential to kinetic energy, which seems to make more sense.
The given examples of the fall of the Berlin Wall or hurricane events are examples that do not fit in the picture of a manuscript that is focused on physics. Other examples that are not political or meteorological.
The overall consensus in physics is that indeed the Big Bang was the start of time, but I do not see why it should also be the end of time.
Also it is considered that indeed since the Big Bang, particles have increased kinetic energy and less potential energy, but also that gravitational potential energy is negative. According to Stephen Hawking "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." One can thus even say that at the Big Bang there was zero energy or a lot, it does not matter, due to the conservation of energy, it only has changed its form. The definition of an action is an event until an equilibrium is achieved or all potential energy is exhausted is probably not well formulated.
Figure 3, I think this figures adds to the explanation of the increase in entropy and reduction of potential energy. If the shape is just as explanation of the arrow of time it is fine, however if the size or surface of the cone should reflect energy, more explanation would be needed about the sizes and or change in size.
In Chapter 3.4 and 3.5 it is argued that the “refresh rate” depends on the ratio of potential energy, kinetic energy and entropy. Unclear is how the ratio is calculated between these three values. Next, the author introduces the “time rate”. Unclear if the “refresh rate” and “time rate” are related, as the “time rate” depends only on the ratio of potential energy to kinetic energy. Unclear is why if there were in a system without kinetic energy, or in other words the system is at 0 K, there will not be time. First of all is reaching absolute zero Kelvin not feasible, next it is unclear from the text in which way it relates to time. Kinetic energy relates to the mass and the velocity of a particle. Thus at 0 K the velocity goes to 0 m/s, as no distance is travelled why would time stand still. It would sound the opposite. As experiments show that at near-0 K the measured distances of particles go towards 0 m, one could argue that the speed of the trapped particles in the experiment are very low and e.g. gas particles outside the experiment go very fast, thus (just like the twin paradox) the particles that are trapped at 0 K would experience time to go faster than the particles outside of the experiment and thus age faster. But as Einstein’s theory says, time is relative, it just states that each particle experiences time differently, but not that time stops when reaching zero velocity or when you reach the speed of light.
Next, the arguments at the end of Chapter 3 sound contradictory as according to the author time “stops” when an object goes at the speed of light and when motion is ceased at near zero Kelvin experiments.
At the end of Chapter 3 the author postulates an experiment to measure time differences between atomic clocks that run at different temperatures. It would be a difficult experiment as the authors states that the accuracy decreases at high temperatures. The author should elaborate more on the experiment, restate the hypothesis and state the expected outcome. Also should be mentioned that those atomic clocks run often at extreme low temperatures and perhaps it should be mentioned also why.
Chapter 4 does not elaborate at all on the postulated theory and combines microbiology where the lasting of food is influenced by temperature and not by other organisms like bacteria or fungus.
Chapter 5 the conclusion does not conclude anything, it merely asks three new question and does not reflect on the hypothesis or any part of the text.
Overall I think the question asked at Chapter 3 is an interesting question if in the general text the author elaborates more on the possible outcomes, gives a better physical explanation why time would go slower or faster for particles that are trapped in near absolute zero Kelvin experiments and how that affects time perception for those particles. Also if the author could propose a method to measure the age of the particles that are trapped in those near absolute zero Kelvin experiments and thus provide perhaps a practical insight into the twin paradox. At the moment the manuscript it too much focused on the argument that energy and time are related and thus at zero energy there is zero time. This concept of stopping time is not established in physics and therefore needs more explanation or even equations to make a point.
20 freelancers are bidding on average €107 for this job
No third parties involved. I deliver high quality work on time!!! please contact me to discuss more on the project, waiting for your kind response. Thank you...