what if time does not exist

[modmans2ndcoming]

what if time, rather than being a real thing used by the universe was just a tool we used to relate events to each other?

reletivity would still stand, as would quantum physics, because in each theory, time is not a fixed element of the universe but is dependent on the frame of refrence of the person making the observations.

[selfAdjoint]

This is true of non relativistic quantum mechanics, but not of relativity, either kind. In special relativity observers must compare physics using Lorentz transformations, and these mix time and space coordinates in linear transformations. So time can't easily be eliminated or downgraded in SR, or in any theory that dpands on SR, like Dirac's electron theory, quantum electrodynamics, the Standard Model, and all forms of String physics.

In General Relativity, coordinates, and physics, are subject to very general changes. Both time and space become somewhat "elastic" in definition. In both kinds of relativity, the same event, seen by different observers, can have very different time-space relationships.

[Saoshant]

I've thought of an interesting theory [well, interesting to me] about time being a spacial dimension, but thats for another thread and a later time.

[Janitor]

Does your theory involve a metric? If so, what is its signature?

[Saoshant]

Originally posted by Janitor
Does your theory involve a metric? If so, what is its signature?

I don't know enough to answer that. It was just some philosophical musing recently that went too far and started making some sense. To wierd people like me, at least. I'll post about it tomorrow, I guess, as I do not have enough time.

[The Green Giant]

Even if time did'nt really exist, it wouldn't metter. We would still be able to change the frames and shapes of the universe to "travel" in time.

[gizzybeans]

Time could never not exist, because it is simply the environment and the universe constantly changing. You don't pass through time, you change, and the result of you changing is what we call time. The only way time could not exist is if the universe's temperature dropped to 0 Kelvin. Then, I think, nothing in the universe would be able to move, therefore it can't change, and we would freeze to death.

[Erck]

Simple but true.

If time didn't exist... everything would happen at once.

[paglren]

Time is not an independent variable. It is strictly related to space. So if time does not exist then also space would not exist.
Think at "time" as a clock like that one that makes computer CPU run: it is something "orthogonal" to space frame.
What I mean is that time is a fourth dimension whose spacial projection is the center of any mass (from which actually 3d space cohordinates departs). So "time" is not perceivable nor measurable like "space", rather its measurement is in term of "space modification".
I think that a further good question could be:
Does time exist where there are no masses (i.e. in vacuum)?
My point is that "time" exists only where a mass exists beacuse only there "space" exists. Moreover, when we measure time the measuring meter itself is made of matter, so it is modifying vacuum (and it is making time/space frame to exist).

[Organic]

Hi modmans2ndcoming,

According to SR, Time cannot be separated from space dimensions.

Space/Time's Signature = changes.

If there are no changes then nothing can be asked nor answered, because any question is its own answer.

Therefore there is a basic logical problem to use a question/answer system that contradicts the existence of a question/answer system.

Shortly speaking, if time does not exist then space does not exist.

Therefore modmans2ndcoming does not exist and is question cannot be asked.

In my opinion "What if...?" questions are very important to our evolution, and evolution means changes.

So, modmans2ndcoming keep use "What if...?" questions.

[sol2]

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end. When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect.


http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

[selfAdjoint]

Good quote, if a little out of date - both in cosmology and economics!

[Les Sleeth]

Time is . . . is strictly related to space. So if time does not exist then also space would not exist. . . .Does time exist where there are no masses (i.e. in vacuum)? My point is that "time" exists only where a mass exists beacuse only there "space" exists. Moreover, when we measure time the measuring meter itself is made of matter, so it is modifying vacuum (and it is making time/space frame to exist).

According to SR, Time cannot be separated from space dimensions. . . Space/Time's Signature = changes. . . . Shortly speaking, if time does not exist then space does not exist.

There is a difference between saying time cannot be separated from space dimensions and to say that if time does not exist then space does not exist.

We normally think of space as that which exists where there is no mass. Of course, recent decades have shown space to be anything but "absence," with virtual particles popping in and out, dark energy and the Higgs field possibly lurking, gravity waiting to converge, etc.

One thing we know about space is that outside galaxies, particles etc., it is expanding. We know matter itself is losing integrity, which is why paglren's point "that 'time' exists only where a mass exists" makes sense. If things keep going the way they are (and of course they might not), at some point all will be "space." Yet if you are correct there couldn't be space because there will be no time. Time will have run out.

Time will have run out because, as Organic says, time is change; or more accurately, it is the measure of the rate of change. Actually, it is the measure of the rate of entropic change because that is the overall direction of the universe. We could say, for instance, that instead of so much time being left before the universe disappears, so many entropic events are left.

If that is an accurate representation of time, then what seems to contradict the theory that "if time does not exist then space does not exist," is the fact that as time runs out, space increases. I believe the concept of time is tied to space because change can only take place in space. It is simply a way to represent that fact conceptually. It doesn't mean "time" is essential to the constitution of space.

[sol2]

Good quote, if a little out of date - both in cosmology and economics!

I choose this because from the standpoint of historical, the evolution of thinking is being demonstrated throughout these three threads about the question on the beginning of Time, nothing ness and we are also talking about infinites, boundaries and such. There is a interpaly i the universe going on and we are trying to describe it?

Craig Hogan has a interesting perspective, about the universe and the atom, and this thought is in response to Ranyarts post to Erik.

Consider this seeming paradox: The biggest and smallest things in nature are the same things. At first this statement seems to make no sense, yet it is not an obscure metaphor or Zen koan. It is a profound truth about the universe, exactly and literally. It can even be represented by a picture (Figure 3). When we look at the largest structures in the cosmic background radiation—the largest and most distant things we can possibly see, stretching across the whole sky at the edge of the universe—we are looking at patterns that were imprinted in the first moments of creation, when these patterns were single quanta—the smallest amount of something (anything), according to quantum theory—far smaller than the smallest subatomic structure ever seen in the laboratory. Even though we are used to the idea that everything in the universe is connected with everything else, such a literal connection between the quantum world and the cosmic world is surprising. That is because most of the time when we look at large things—anything you can see without a microscope—they look continuous. There is no obvious sign that they are made of discrete microscopic elementary particles. So it is remarkable that when we look at the very largest things, we start seeing the quanta again. The universe expanding all around us acts like a giant microscope.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770;jsessionid=baa4GbvYtjDPBV?fulltext=true

So indeed we are all over the map here but we are speaking about the realities that have always been spoken,and to the degrees that certain conclusions have been drawn based on certain proposals.

Imagine time from a supersymmertical state? Has any one realized that the quantum reality and the reductionist view has come to certain realizations?

What about cryptography qubits and such. How will this thinking rearrange the world from the reductionist standpoint so far understood. Dimension in a gravity sense has to be recognized. Numerical relativity?

[selfAdjoint]

Well, ordinary bits have been an epiphany to some - see "A New Kind of Science". I don't buy it, basically because I know that arithmetic is Goedel incomplete and geometry isn't. Since I think it's a requirement for a TOE to be complete in that sense, I stick with real and complex variables.

[sol2]

Well, ordinary bits have been an epiphany to some - see "A New Kind of Science". I don't buy it, basically because I know that arithmetic is Goedel incomplete and geometry isn't. Since I think it's a requirement for a TOE to be complete in that sense, I stick with real and complex variables.

Insights are a strange thing where such tidbits spark recognition of something much more advanced ,then anything we currently understood. Do you remember the Anomalies of perception?:)

So even given this perspective, I think you recognize, as well as others, that such a mathematical basis is at the heart of all these creations. We are looking for consistancy.

I found a interesting comment the other day about mathematicians being the architects of reality.:)

http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/edkluk/public_html/crt_aphys/feynman.html

...To summarize, I would use the words of Jeans, who said that "the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician". To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once.

http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/edkluk/public_html/crt_aphys/feynman.html


My early conversations with Doc, helped to reinforce this undertanding, about what a calm mind might percieve, had it not been so busy on so many other things. That we had not recognized the one inch equation for what it is.

The geometrical basis is also understood from this persepctive, and such consistancy has to be found, expressed, in the reality of these conversations.

Mike2 attemtps at a logical foundation, is the idea from my perspective as well, and still, we engage, the many facets of the science currently talked about in these points of view.

GR is part of the consistancy of strings yet it is a theoretical thing that is supported by the maths. We have been taken to the Graviton by Witten in this formulation. Yet the graviational wave situation has not be changed much, and look at all the fabrications we are building to test it?

Again your restrain has been the anchor for many in terms of this enduring explorations into reality, and we need to be reminded it seems.:)

[tabloid]

is it possible for humans to start thinking in terms of a global time;a common refrence point,so that we simply start asking each other "what is the time" instead of "what is the time there".i think it could help if we think different and also if we are to determine the motion of celestial bodies and their effects on where we live.

[selfAdjoint]

But observers moving with respect to each other will see time passing at different rates and will disagree on whether two events occured at the same time or not. This makes it questionable whether a common time can be agreed on, and what basis we should use for that agreement.

[paglren]

But observers moving with respect to each other will see time passing at different rates and will disagree on whether two events occured at the same time or not. This makes it questionable whether a common time can be agreed on, and what basis we should use for that agreement.

This is true only at light speed or close: then space, time and light speed have to be strictly related each other.
My point is that speed light c is embedded in space-time: as to say that space is "generated" at speed light by the presence of a mass.
Think of masses as a "condensation" of empty space at c speed. When a mass explodes (or simply doesn't condensate longer) then a lightening is perceived because space is no longer "swallowed" by mass.
This leads only to a point-of-view change: all rules are respected because they are all relatively stated.
Yet light would be a still point and mass would be like a pulsating blackhole that is limited in its contraction but that influences all space around at c speed.
If this is true, then we could affirm that gravitation speed is the same that light speed: each of two (fairly any force and any event in the Universe) could be assimilated to pieces of "information" gathered by a mass-point at c speed.

[selfAdjoint]

Without commenting on your suggestions about c generating space or the nature of mass, let me point out that the Lorentz transformation, which make time and space relative, are not just valid at high speeds but at all speeds. We don't notice the variations in our daiily lives only because they are so small.

But if you had a super accurate kitchen clock, and also a super accurate wrist watch, and you synchronized them when you went out in the morning, then when you came back in the evening, after moving around at a few dozen feet per second during the day, you would find that your watch showed an earlier time than your clock, by a few nanoseconds.

People have done this with super accurate clocks, moving them at about five miles per second (in orbit), and getting the effect.

[kronchev]

then change would be pretty impossible

[sol2]

Einstein wrote"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

Maybe from a dimensional understanding, there is no illusion?

If we shake the string, so it vibrates in a different mode, then the electron can turn into something else, such as a quark, the fundamental constitute of protons and neutrons. Shake it again, and the string could vibrate in the mode which describes photons (the quanta of light). Shake it again and it turns into a graviton (the quanta of gravity).

In fact, the collective set of vibrations corresponds to the entire spectrum of known particles. Instead of postulating millions of different particles, one only has to postulate a single object, the superstring. The sub-atomic particles are notes on the superstring. Our bodies are symphonies of strings, and the laws of physics are the laws of harmony of the superstring.

http://firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp

[sol2]

Well, ordinary bits have been an epiphany to some - see "A New Kind of Science". I don't buy it, basically because I know that arithmetic is Goedel incomplete and geometry isn't. Since I think it's a requirement for a TOE to be complete in that sense, I stick with real and complex variables.

A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram



Of course my memory had to be jogged.

We taked about this early in superstringtheory forum.

Richard and Doc had a exchange here that lead to the question of, Laws of Form (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963989901/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-1655454-2913626?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). A tool to explore the world of George Spencer-Brown's paradoxical Forms.



http://causaergosum.net/lof/lofn2.html

[Tachyon26]

I believe time travel is possible, however I wish to endeavor as to what everyone else thinks is a viable means of doing so. For example, in the movie Contact (good movie I thought), developed from the book by Sagan, the machine is used to create, essentially, a wormhole. Suggestions or comments anyone?

[selfAdjoint]

If you can get from one point in spacetime to another one in less time than it takes light to go there, then you can use that capability to go back in your own timeline. In general relativity there are several solutions of Einstein's equations for different physical situations that allow FTL/time travel. A wormhole is one of them. There is also the case of a massive body rotating very fast (like half the speed of light at its circumference). And the Alcubiere space warp which allows FTL transit can also be adapted to time travel.

None of these phenomena are currently achieveable, and many phsyicists would say they are physically impossible. We'll see.

[kenshuu]

For me, time exist as the universe's energy is communicating. First, if time don't exist, we can't even THINK.

Regarding time travel, I don't believe it is possible. Because, if i do, i wouldn't have to believe a infinite-multiple universes, which each universe exist as a time being, are existing.

[freemind]

The question is not whether time "exists" or not. Rather, it is 'what is time?' Is it just an "independent" variable included in mathematical equations? It is change? Or is it merely an abstraction (I think not)?


Note: How does this relate to the 'arrow of time'? (increase in overall entropy)

[Pergatory]

Time is a method we've invented to label duration of events. Nothing more, nothing less. To think of time as a spacial dimension or that you can travel back or forward in time is absurd. Time is merely a measurement of the propogation of causality.

For example, if our Sun exploded at this very instant, we would not know it for 8 minutes because that's how long it takes the Sun's light to get here. It could be said that the Sun exploded 8 minutes from now, from our frame of reference.

This is also how I believe wormholes will work. Let's say you jump a wormhole to a galaxy 1 million lightyears away, and you arrive instantly. Not just faster than light but infinite velocity. Effectively, you have just travelled 1 million years into the past. If before you had left, you looked at your destination through a telescope, you'd see it as it was 1 million years before your arrival. Accordingly, if you pulled out a telescope and looked back toward Earth as soon as you arrive, you would see an image of Earth as it was 1 million years before you left. The light is just now reaching your destination after 1 million years, as a reaction of that light being emitted 1 million years ago back here on Earth.

This is the only form in which time travel is possible. To jump back in the wormhole and come back to Earth 5 minutes later, I believe you would literally arrive 5 minutes after you had left. If you turned around and peered back at the distant galaxy to which you had just travelled, you'd see the ancient million-year-old light of your destination's past again.

Time cannot be travelled through, it can only be observed. Time dilation is merely the result of an increase in the delay of causality.

[freemind]

Your description pertains to the concept of time @ the macroscopic level. John Cramer's transactional interpretation of QM makes extensive use of advanced waves (waves travelling 'back in time') to describe particle interactions. Is time resultant of the CPT asymmetry @ the quantum level (it can't be propagation of causality, as causality is not necessary @ this level; particle interactions are time-symmetric, so the concept of 'forward and backward in time' does not really matter)?

[Pergatory]

You're right.

It is my personal opinion that QM is a pretty wrapping for "We don't have any idea why the hell this happens." It's the catch-all for when things don't go as our theories predict. When our understanding advances such that we can understand exactly what's happening, I think we'll see that quantum superposition is an illusion. Quantum probability is our inability to see all the variables. The need for QM will disappear, to be replaced by something more fundamental. My money is on a combination of the Harmonics and New Field theories.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying the importance of QM! In advancing our understanding of QM, we are gaining a better understanding of those phenomenon which matter most -- the ones we don't understand! However, I believe QM is a giant bubble of lack of understanding and eventually it'll burst and we will see the 'big picture.'

[Pergatory]

Your description pertains to the concept of time @ the macroscopic level. John Cramer's transactional interpretation of QM makes extensive use of advanced waves (waves travelling 'back in time') to describe particle interactions. Is time resultant of the CPT asymmetry @ the quantum level (it can't be propagation of causality, as causality is not necessary @ this level; particle interactions are time-symmetric, so the concept of 'forward and backward in time' does not really matter)?

On an additional note - Even without the evaluation of causality, time flows only in one direction. All events have a certain duration and that duration is never negative. I'd be interested to know more about the advanced waves you discussed, are they an observed phenomenon? If so, perhaps I'm entirely wrong.

[sol2]

If gravitons pervade the bulk, then "time" might mean something else?

A photon travelling through this space, might encounter distances that might appear to be short, but are every "long" in terms of billions of years, in regards to that time?

The dimensional significance is then played out here, where different degrees of measure might be considered in evidence of monopole directions in regards to that spin?

How else might we, regard the dynamics of this energy if we did not see the greater, and less than? Orbifolds?

If we are in the dynamics of this space, how would such dynamics be revealed? Geometrical considerations then take hold here?

I am open to corrections.

[AntiQuarks]

Time is not an independent variable. It is strictly related to space. So if time does not exist then also space would not exist.
Think at "time" as a clock like that one that makes computer CPU run: it is something "orthogonal" to space frame.
What I mean is that time is a fourth dimension whose spacial projection is the center of any mass (from which actually 3d space cohordinates departs). So "time" is not perceivable nor measurable like "space", rather its measurement is in term of "space modification".
I think that a further good question could be:
Does time exist where there are no masses (i.e. in vacuum)?
My point is that "time" exists only where a mass exists beacuse only there "space" exists. Moreover, when we measure time the measuring meter itself is made of matter, so it is modifying vacuum (and it is making time/space frame to exist).


When you say in vacuum, time might not exist because there is no mass. But there are nonzero background energy in vacuum, and there are supposely "particle/antiparticle pairs being created and destroyed on a frequent basis." Those take time to happen, no matter how small the time frame is...

If nothing changes, then there's no methods/need to measure time. In that state, you will say time doesn't exist, but you can't prove time doesn't exist either.

So time both exists and doesn't exist. It's just depends on what state you are in.

[paglren]

When you say in vacuum, time might not exist because there is no mass. But there are nonzero background energy in vacuum....
My point is that vacuum background energy depends from masses that are / have been existent since Universe starting time: I.e. energy isn't a vacuum's property. Vacuum ha no property (or it isn't vacuum).

So time both exists and doesn't exist. It's just depends on what state you are in.
I agree. In fact I think that time (like as matter) does "exist" and "non-exist" in an infinite vibration that happens infinite times.
Because of the persistance of some symmetry in "existence" we are concerned with something that we call "space" and "time" which are in constant relation between them (say light speed).
This constant relationship is necessary to allow time to flow and space to be curved and crossed.
Considering spacetime as a fourth dimensional frame in which time has to be "syncronic", space must be variable, otherwise spacetime tissue would be teared or fragmented.

[AntiQuarks]

Without commenting on your suggestions about c generating space or the nature of mass, let me point out that the Lorentz transformation, which make time and space relative, are not just valid at high speeds but at all speeds. We don't notice the variations in our daiily lives only because they are so small.

But if you had a super accurate kitchen clock, and also a super accurate wrist watch, and you synchronized them when you went out in the morning, then when you came back in the evening, after moving around at a few dozen feet per second during the day, you would find that your watch showed an earlier time than your clock, by a few nanoseconds.

People have done this with super accurate clocks, moving them at about five miles per second (in orbit), and getting the effect.


About the clock and the watch's difference, can it be because of the relatively "fast" moving causes the watch to "work" slower(I don't mean it's not accurate, it's the nature that it will happen), instead of the "time" that it is measuring is "slower "?

[selfAdjoint]

About the clock and the watch's difference, can it be because of the relatively "fast" moving causes the watch to "work" slower(I don't mean it's not accurate, it's the nature that it will happen), instead of the "time" that it is measuring is "slower "?

THe time and the space are mathematically related. You are right that it's not the fault of the watch - or the clock!. They are both assumed to be accurate measurers of the "proper times" they experience. But your motions relative to the clock meant that your proper time (measured by your wristwatch) ran slower RELATIVE TO THE CLOCK AT HOME than that clock did.

There is no definition of time deeper than proper time. There is no "secret observer" whose time can be applied to everything. People have actually tried to theorize that God, who is outside time, is the secret observer, but nobody has built a successful, self consistent theory out of that idea. In fact is appears to be self-contradictory when you work through it. It really looks like we have to bend our minds around the unfamiliar facts of relativity.

[tabloid]

im tired of measuring time according to what older pple view.im tired of the 24hrr system;the GPS isnt growing fast enough;and if it did my good dream is to be able to relate an organism's location with time.if we can make such a piece of hardware which can clearly predict someone's co-ordinates with regards to time,then we wont need the normal time views we have.if
we cant have a global time;a common referrence point of measuring time so that we can know where every9ne is at?
i dont measure human progress in terms of theories;but what those theories have contributed in making more sophisticated tools that we use.
remember,if we dont participate in human progress,well most likely suffocate ourselves by ourselves right here on earth.well slowly rot and die away,before we even find another life in another world-different from us.

[oscar]

This issue about time was already discussed by philosopher Imanuel Kant. He asked if TIME is something that could exist in itself? What are the happenings of the universe without the time or the time without the happenings? He asked if space was something existing in itself and the idea was it was an illusion. How are we gonna understand metaphysics if we don't physics? I can set the example of the "dream". It doesn't matter if you put electrods and check the closed eyelids to see the Rapid Movement of the Eyes (RME) measuring mini- cycles of dreams that would accumulate a total of aproximately 2 hours. The fact is that "subjective" experience has another ticking while you are objectivly dreaming and it's completely different from what scientists outsiders are measuring! And ask yourself something not solved by puzzled smart experts in neuron-surgery, the space of the dreams and thoughts. Therefore, I choose to believe ancient wisdom regarding this space-time issue:
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=22384&page=1&pp=15

[selfAdjoint]

Well those smart neurologists aren't baffled by "The space of dreams"; they just don't for a minute believe in it. They believe that dreams are false sensations caused by excitations of the nerves in our sensory systems - principally the visual system. An awful lot is known about the internal workings of the visual system.

[oscar]

Wowawaw" Moderator is getting irritated but nop, I don't think is worth it to write the names of HUMBLE specialist who really don't know but make hypothesis of dreams. One thing is the possible meaning of the dreams and other thing is to know how does the brain work to produce them or the "ticking" of the dreams. But, evidently you're not a specialist in that area either so why would I waste my energy convincing YOU of the things they ignore. I know better since I have experience in medical area but I won't present my curriculum vitae to satisfy curiosity. In fact, I don't care what you are or your statements. Something to add about the issue? No? It figures! You're just beginning to be annoyed and are posting particular messages to every post that I make, why would that be Mr. Moderator? Hmm?

[tabloid]

arent u guys tired of wearing wrist watches;if you go around the world youll have to carry atleast five watches for the different times of those spots you wan' visit-unless ofcourse,you have a fabulous watch that can adjust itself as you move around.maybe they can try to make such a nice watch;thats what i was trying to say in my previous post above.

[The Bob]

What you need to consider about time is if it is in our world, e.g. clocks and the rate at which things happen, or is it independent to our world, e.g. it changes how it likes and we can never tell if it has changed or not because we are in it.

I believe that time is a very misleading factor in any science. Although used as a measurement in our world, time itself must be independent to us. It works with space. As we know space can fold and stretch (and this is a higher dimension than time) why not time? Time can form around us, stop, change speed and we will not notice any change as we are in it. We feel no different. So time is very hard to explain. As in relation to a clock it is a measurement, as itself (well) we really will never fully understand until we step out of time and can wonder around in it. Here is where we need to imgaine 4-Dimensioanl Shapes. Then we can 'Time Travel'. (See another thread).

The Bob (2004 ©)

[LeBrok]

For a week I'm thinking about what's time. I have an idea that looks good to me so I decided to share with ppl. looking for the answer :confused: . What do you think? :rolleyes: Here it goes. (can't explain it better, english is my second language)


Imagine there is no time… It’s tough if not impossible. At least you could imagine the room or other place without the movement. And maybe this is it. There is no time dimension, and instead of it there is a movement in space. In our case movement in 3 dimensional space.
Let’s ask a question.
Can there be time without space?
If time is a part of our space and there is no space there is no time. Unless time is a universal thing that exists outside our universe. But then we never know that not being able to exist or measure outside our space. According to most accepted theories there is no time without space.
Let’s ask another question.
Can there be space without time?
I think so, we can have even one-dimensional space with string particle in it but there is no movement at all. No movement of any sort. No moving particles, sub particles, space itself or whatever is the smallest element the world is build of. There is no time or other words the time stopped, the world never changes. The answer is, space can exist without time but not vice versa. The space does not need time to exist.

Consider other possibility. Let’s take for example a motionless world were the Time the 4th dimension does not exist. Visualize handful of small particles (try to imagine more then one, because if there is only one you will not know if it’s moving, relativity principle, remember?). They are not moving, they are in same distances to each other – no time no movement.
Now, what would it take to change the quantum state of theirs? To move the quantum distance, the smallest distance available in space, to make a little “jump” to other quantum state/space. Remember, in quantum world there is nothing in between the quantum states/space. You travel the quantum distance immediately. You cannot measure the time it took the particle to travel the quantum distance because there is no small enough quantum of time to measure it. Other words, the quantum “jump” is instantaneous and we don’t need time to pass to make this quantum move. You are going to see those little particles jumping from one quantum place to the other in space just because the movement in this space is allowed and not because the clock is ticking by.

If you stop the quantum motion/movement in space of the smallest particles that are in your alarm clock, the clock is going to stop and the “time” in clock. If you stop them in your body your life will stop and your perception of time. We can only perceive time because of our memory, because we remember how world looked like some time ago, other words some quantum movements ago.



Time travel.
If you could apply energy to move the tiniest particles beck so they can trays back their movements and states you could create for yourself an illusion of time going backward but for those tiny particles that would be a new set of movements and stats.
And of course to apply energy so precisely to every tiniest particle on bigger scale will always be impossible, so will be the travel in time.

[C. Michael Turner]

This is true of non relativistic quantum mechanics, but not of relativity, either kind. In special relativity observers must compare physics using Lorentz transformations, and these mix time and space coordinates in linear transformations. So time can't easily be eliminated or downgraded in SR, or in any theory that dpands on SR, like Dirac's electron theory, quantum electrodynamics, the Standard Model, and all forms of String physics.

In General Relativity, coordinates, and physics, are subject to very general changes. Both time and space become somewhat "elastic" in definition. In both kinds of relativity, the same event, seen by different observers, can have very different time-space relationships.
If all matter were transfering to the gravitational wave would not each discrete matter set its own time and space; and through speed which represents the relationship of discrete gravitational waves affect time and space? Would Gravitational Relativity then be classified as: As a point of origin mass to energy tansfer in wave form?

[PoPpAScience]

Time is strictly the incrementation of Evolution. Time is only relative to the viewer. Time never exists, only passes. Time in equations is used to calculate markers in Evolution.

[TillEulenspiegel]

"what if time does not exist ?"

Time is natures way of keeping everything from happening at once.
There is a discreet interval between your question and my jest. There is SOME factor at work. Call it what you may. It generally gets slippery when talking about QM and causality , but hey this is just a board , right?

[Chronos]

What if 'reality' does not exist? Do the math. If you are correct, we will all disappear. Apologies. Why does anyone entertain this foolishness? Having not seen any valid math [albeit some bunk math], I wonder why this thread has not been moved to the philosophy forum.

[The Bob]

Time is strictly the incrementation of Evolution. Time is only relative to the viewer. Time never exists, only passes. Time in equations is used to calculate markers in Evolution.

That is what I have been trying to say.

Thanks. :biggrin:

Time may move differently to use but humans have set markers oni it that may not be accurate to time.

The Bob (2004 ©)

[Chronos]

Crap = crap. Time and space are inseparable, yet clearly observable participants in the universe we live in. They do not insist upon or require independent or absolute reference frames. Get used to it. Logic compares poorly to the solid math we have that does make sense and works.

[Epsilon Pi]

Time and space are inseparable, uhmm, that was established by Minkowski, but if we take into account that complex wave equation which was the beginning of QM, don´t we have that time and space are decoupled by the complex symbol, the so-called "imaginary" symbol? Don't we have then a different point of view about time and space when dealing with QM objects such as the electron?
Regards
EP

Time and space are inseparable...

[Antonio Lao]

At the infinitesimal 1D region of spacetime, space and time cannot be distinguished and both are curved by the very strong orthogonal forces as absolute constant localized angular accelerations. Because of the extreme forces, the constant change of directions of these accelerations, once started, are very difficult to vary hence the changing direction is conserved and these can become a principle of directional invariance.

[The Bob]

Basically time exists but we made the measurement time not time itself. If time didn't exist then all events would be simultanious and there would be no define points. Also Space curves with events in time so it must exist.

The Bob (2004 ©)

[donnie]

Basically time exists but we made the measurement time not time itself.
Good point
If time didn't exist then all events would be simultanious
Events are simultaneous and also in succession. Cause and effect. It boggles the mind to think back to what could have started the first event that caused this 'simultaneous succession'. Could we even consider that there could BE such a naming phrase? :uhh:

[what_are_electrons]

Just bought a book a few weeks back with this title: "Does Time Exist?" It's a paperback from 1st Books Library (ISBN 1-4107-1057-2). Has anyone had a chance to read it? What do you think?

[The Bob]

Events are simultaneous and also in succession. Cause and effect. It boggles the mind to think back to what could have started the first event that caused this 'simultaneous succession'. Could we even consider that there could BE such a naming phrase? :uhh:

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH. I can understand that all events in the world in a second are simultaneous but not every event ever (<----- Alliteration :biggrin: ).

Does my mind in because I am on MSN and I get the flashing message to say that I have a reply or a message but it was written earlier to me receiving it. But what you are saying is that the writing, sending, recieving and reading are happening all at the same time?!?!?!?!?! :surprise: That does your mind in.

The Bob (2004 ©)

[eljose79]

-In fact if quantum theory is right,"time" and "space" exist only in classical physics just as we see trajectories and particles have momentum but is nothing but an ilusion,in quantum world there is no space-time.

-Sahoshant:=perhaps you can use some kind of geometric transform to make an interval of space being an interval of time...there are many books who proposed that one of this is "El caballo de Troya" (Trojan Horse) by J.J Benitez who tells us about time travel and a new geometric conception of space time.

[Epsilon Pi]

-In fact if quantum theory is right,"time" and "space" exist only in classical physics just as we see trajectories and particles have momentum but is nothing but an ilusion,in quantum world there is no space-time.


But is it not the concept of particle as is defined in classical physics the one that is askew?
Is not the point of view of an "illusion" due precisely to the Copenhagen school of thought initiated by Heinsenberg?
Are not time and space decoupled precisely due to that other school of thought initiated by Schrodinger and its well-known complex wave equation?

-Sahoshant:=perhaps you can use some kind of geometric transform to make an interval of space being an interval of time...there are many books who proposed that one of this is "El caballo de Troya" (Trojan Horse) by J.J Benitez who tells us about time travel and a new geometric conception of space time.
Have you read the Urantia Book from which most of the basic proposal of "El caballo de Troya"(and other books by J.J. Benitez) was taken?... there, we certainly have a quite different cosmology, and as a matter of fact it says that an electron is constituted by 100 ultimatons. Does this give reason of that inherent polarity conformed by 50 and 50 ultimatons?
Regards
EP

[kurious]

If time did not exist then the arrow of time - entropy - wouldn't either.

[kurious]

If time did not exist then the arrow of time - entropy - wouldn't either.
Experiment shows that entropy does exist and changes with time.

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, good point, and the arrow of time does not have to do with a concept of time not symmetrical, not of the space-like type? At QM levels it is definitively decoupled.
Regards
EP
If time did not exist then the arrow of time - entropy - wouldn't either.
Experiment shows that entropy does exist and changes with time.

[kurious]

Epsilon Pi:
At QM levels it is definitively decoupled

Kurious:
If you can find a truly isolated QM system independent of its environment.

[Tom Mattson]

Are not time and space decoupled precisely due to that other school of thought initiated by Schrodinger and its well-known complex wave equation?


But this completely misses the point. People say that time and space are coupled because of relativity, but the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic. Space and time are indeed coupled in relativistic QM, and in QFT.

[jcsd]

Hmmm, does time exist? Ask me again in five minutes.

[Entropy]

Give me a non-abstract definition of time and I'll tell you if it exists or not.

[bino]

time is a measuring tool.

[The Bob]

time is a measuring tool.

This thread is not about what humans use as a measuring tool, it is about time itself, or at least that I was what I have been led to believe.

It reminds me of when I posted earlier about humans thinking in measurement time and not real time. :rolleyes:

The Bob (2004 ©)

[Epsilon Pi]

What point does it miss, the one that has been prevailing in a paradigm that is askew, since both QM -as Schrodinger complex wave equation that explains just the behavior of one particle, the electron- and relativity do not talk to each other, as it is said the former is non relativistic?
Are you really sure there is not a framework that including the findings of both, QM, as per Schrodinger, and relativity equations and even others will solve that great schism we have lived in physics since then?
Should not a forum like this open its doors to the evolution of the philosophy of science in this sense, so we can have a physical science that not only talks with itself but with the other sciences as well?
Just some questions about an askew paradigm
Regards
EP

But this completely misses the point. People say that time and space are coupled because of relativity, but the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic. Space and time are indeed coupled in relativistic QM, and in QFT.

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, there is one, and it is precisely the electron, and this fact is expressed in that now infamous Schrodinger wave equation; infamous because it does not have anything to do with the chemistry of nuclear interactions?
Is not a science that forgets its founders definitively lost?

Regards
EP
Epsilon Pi:
At QM levels it is definitively decoupled

Kurious:
If you can find a truly isolated QM system independent of its environment.

[brodix]

Space is the absolute and time is a third order function with two directions.

There is no universal reference frame, but a reference frame is an abstraction in the first place. What is space?

The idea that space is curved is derived from the assumption that it is only the context for physical properties and can so only be measured in terms of their motion.

Now this motion is measured as a function of such properties traveling a distance and distance constitutes a line segmant, so it is one dimensional. Even our abstract reference frames are three dimensional, so we judge the reality of space on the basis of a component of an abstraction.

Three dimensions start at the x,y,,z point, but it is arbitrary. Geometry never incorporated zero. Consider that 4x0=0, but that 4'x0'=4'. Four feet is four feet, but if you wish to assign it a factor of zero, then it should have consequences.

Assuming the point as the center of a reference frame equals one, what is zero in geometry, other then empty space?

Space is ultimately flat, in that all gravitational collapse and universal expansion balance out, so that Newton’s observation; “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” still holds.

Every curvature of the path of traveling mass exists in a larger equilibrium where the tension of any particular disequilibrium is balanced out. If a two dimensional description of space curves into a gravitational well, it cannot do so from a flat plane, as this would imply a universal reference frame. It must be curving upward in inverse proportion to which gravity curves it downward.

The absolute is not a reference frame. It is equilibrium. In fact, any number of reference frames can be used to define the same space, so our map of space may be three dimensional for intellectually reductionistic convenience, but the actual territory of space is infinitely dimensional.

In fact, science generally accepts this equilibrium, considering such concepts as matter/anti-matter, electromagnetic polarities, etc.

Einstein felt the need to balance his theory of relative space and its effects with a cosmological constant, an idea that has yet to be buried.

It is those physical properties which exist in the equilibrium of space that are the second order.

This mass/energy is neither created or destroyed, but is in motion and constantly changing form, which is called information. As the amount of energy doesn’t change, old information is erased as new information is recorded. This is the process of time.

Information which existed, but no longer does, is the past. Information which has been created and still exists is the present. Information which has yet to be created is the future.

The measure of time is of specific motion against its context. As a measure of relative motion, the context is not an absolute, so it is in motion as well, effectively moving in the opposite direction. To the hands of the clock, everything else is moving counter-clockwise.

Our abstract units of time tend to be sequential, but the real units overlap. A day on the east coast isn’t the same time as a day on the west coast. While we see the sun as moving east to west, the reality is that we are rotating west to east, relative to the sun.

What this means is that while the unit of time goes from beginning to end, the process of time goes toward beginnings, away from endings. As daylight is draining from the east, it is pouring into the west.

This relationship between units and processes is fundamental. Individuals go from birth to death, but the process of life is pouring into the next generation as it is draining from the older generation.

While the products on an assembly line go from intiation to completion, the future for the process isn’t with what is finished, but is to be started. What matters to this process is not so much the finished product, but the energy generated in the form of wages and profits that allow it to continue. Just as food and information passing through you propels you toward gathering more.

Thoughts are the entities to the process of the mind, rising and falling as the mind gathers information and quantitizes it. As we get older, it takes less additional information/energy to form each thought, so time speeds up.

In any relationship, that which is defined is the entity and that doing the defining is the process, so it's the motion of the defined, like the hands of the clock, that we notice.

What comes first, past or future? We see past events proceeding future ones, but the events themselves are first in the future, then in the past.

Two people communicating with each other exist in each others future, but are perceived in their own past. Time is simply a function of subjective reality.

[tuna]

I'm still relatively(ha, my first science quip) new to this and i'm not well read so i wont be using any profound quotes but it strikes me that S/T, the first dimension we haven't got the hang of, is just the next step on the ladder that we haven't yet evolved fill. It seems easier for me to get my head around when i picture, absolutely, everything as a liquid of different consistency'...Like the lakes at the bottom of the ocean, there but for the grace of god...And their higher saline content :). What really gets me about time is the fact that it's eternal otherwise it wouldn't exist as it's confined within it's own boundaries. Also if M says that there is 11D super grav. then how/what/where is it contained other than within itself. Maybe some universal fractal code where the actual measurements are irrelevant.

[omin]

what if time, rather than being a real thing used by the universe was just a tool we used to relate events to each other?

reletivity would still stand, as would quantum physics, because in each theory, time is not a fixed element of the universe but is dependent on the frame of refrence of the person making the observations.

All things are real that may be talked about, because in some way they are sensed. Time may not be something not real because we sense time. All things sensed are in some category of existence.

I'm studying specifically the concept time. Time is the symbolic quantified representation of sensed phenomena. Those symbols represents properties of physical things of the universe.

Time is fixed, otherwise time could not be measured or distinguished with the information speed from viewers at different coordinates.

I found a quote of Leibniz in What Is Time, G.J. Whitrow that hints directly at the principle:

Suppose someone asks why did not God create everything a year sooner and that he wants to infer from this that God has done something for which he could have had no reason for doing it when he did rather than at some other time. This inference would be correct if time existed independently of things. For then there would be no reason why things should exist at certain instants and not others, their succession remaining the same.

This quote also implies that time travel is b.s.

[Tom Mattson]

What point does it miss, the one that has been prevailing in a paradigm that is askew, since both QM -as Schrodinger complex wave equation that explains just the behavior of one particle, the electron- and relativity do not talk to each other, as it is said the former is non relativistic?


It misses the point that the coupling of time and space in relativity is a break from the Galilean view of space and time. That Galilean view is built right into the Schrodinger equation.


Are you really sure there is not a framework that including the findings of both, QM, as per Schrodinger, and relativity equations and even others will solve that great schism we have lived in physics since then?


I have no idea of what schism you are talking about, and I don't know why you think I'm sure that there is no unification of QM and SR. As any first year graduate student in physics knows, SR and QM have been unified in the Klein-Gordon and Dirac theories. They are Lorentz invariant, quantum mechanical equations.


Should not a forum like this open its doors to the evolution of the philosophy of science in this sense, so we can have a physical science that not only talks with itself but with the other sciences as well?


I'm at a loss for your meaning here. Physics permeates every science.


Just some questions about an askew paradigm


What "askew paradigm"?

[Chronos]

To reiterate what Tom said, Klein-Gordon may be the most important paper in modern physics. I think it is the best current approach to reconciling the two most successful theories in the history of science. Check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Gordon_equation

[Epsilon Pi]

It misses the point that the coupling of time and space in relativity is a break from the Galilean view of space and time. That Galilean view is built right into the Schrodinger equation.

Does not have the Galilean view has to do with that newtonian view about an absolute space and time?
If yes, then there is a break with relativity, but how can you say the Galilean view is right into the Schrodinger complex wave equation? Did Galileo use complex numbers to represent the equations of physics? Did Galileo know something about a decoupled version of space and time, as is expressed in the complex Schrodinger wave equation when dealing with the electron?
The great break is really in this concept of time and space as decoupled entities -when dealing with the electron- a conception that was abandoned by physicists in that moment they decided to put relativity, as sort of an absolute conceptual framework of reference. From this moment we certainly have an incommensurability problem as I have pointed out several times in this forum.


I have no idea of what schism you are talking about, and I don't know why you think I'm sure that there is no unification of QM and SR. As any first year graduate student in physics knows, SR and QM have been unified in the Klein-Gordon and Dirac theories. They are Lorentz invariant, quantum mechanical equations.

What schism? That one that is described by Karl. R. Popper in his book: "Quantum theory and the Schism in Physics",
Of course any theory that pretends to be unified must be Lorentz invariant, but how do you present to your graduate students the fact that QM began with that now infamous SWE? Or do you not teach that equation anymore because it is old QM?


I'm at a loss for your meaning here. Physics permeates every science.

Yes, physics must permeate every science a reason why we must make philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of the fundamental of time and space, if as scientists we do not want to be in a cocoon.


What "askew paradigm"?
"Today research in part of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and even art history, all converge to suggest that the traditional paradigm is somehow askew. That failure to fit is also made increasingly apparent by the historical study of science to which most of our attention is necessarily directed" T.S.K.
[/QUOTE]
Regards
EP
PD: A science that forgets its founders is definitively lost.

[Epsilon Pi]

Normally the problem physicists have had, even Schrodinger, with its complex wave equation, is that:
"the equation doesn't take into account the spin of the electron", right? but also that:
"The Schrödinger equation suffers from not being relativistically covariant, meaning it does not take into account Einstein's special theory of relativity."
But what about if we have, not a TOE, but a complex mathematical procedure, complex in the sense its starting point is sort of basic unit system concept, based on Euler relation, and with which we can deduce not only the complex Schrodinger wave equation, but those equations of the Lorentz transformation group, in a new context that has at the background the complex plane too?... a procedure that taking the magnetic field as the fundamental field represents it too by that same complex basic unit system concept, having in mind that it has a radical duality represented in its inherent polarity that for sure has to do with its "spin" behavior?
Is it not true that with this procedure we do not have to abandon neither the old SWE, nor those equations that represent special relativity? And on the other hand is it not true that with that certitude represented by the inherent magnetic field and its spin behavior included in that complex symbolic representation we overcome those two problems up?
But additionally we have that the equations of gravitational fields: those of normal planets, and planets such as Mercury and its well-known deviation can also be deduced. Furthermore we have under the same conceptual roof the equation of the pendulum and its approximation factor that can be validated with what is observed, and for which T.S.K. wrote:
"How else are we to account for Galileo's discovery that the bob's period is entirely independent of amplitude, a discovery that the normal science stemming from Galileo had to eradicate and that we are quite unable to document today?"
Best regards
EP

To reiterate what Tom said, Klein-Gordon may be the most important paper in modern physics. I think it is the best current approach to reconciling the two most successful theories in the history of science. Check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Gordon_equation

[setAI]

since this forum has hit the fan- I maight as well post my luna-tyk ramblings on the issue:

"Time probably does not "flow"[Motion] in the way we think it does- nor does it even exist in the way we think- [it's likely an abstract proprietary mental model of causality- like color is for electromagnetism ] we think we perceive a constant forward arrow of time- but it seems that time passes differently for different objects- affected by motion/mass- but that is just the tip of the iceberg- there is really no convincing evidence that time flows at all!- I wonder if it is more like we "move" in "time"- in an overall "direction"- but that direction may not be the only direction we can move- like the old mathematical allegory of a two dimensional creature moving in the third dimension- he cannot even begin to understand how he moves- he instead perceives himself as stationary- while the world changes- the idea of Time is very complex and unintuitive even in our conceptual models of it- when you try to find "time" you always end up with nothing but phantoms- we believe in "the past"- but where is it? it does not exist "now"- but we believe it "did" exist "then"- what does that mean?- we know that "the future" does not "yet" exist- so the past and future are both non-existent- so that just leaves us with "now"- but what is "now"? it is an elusive wraith- we think it is an infinitely short "simultaneous" moment- but that makes it non-existent as well!- plus we know that our sense of the present is actually a second or more behind whatever is going on outside our brains- whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, you are right time is a very strange concept, but is it not the great flaw of modern physics to have assimilated time to a space dimension?
Must not time and space be included in a mathematical representation that permits both:
- to couple it to space for the sake of application, but additionally
- to decouple it, as is expressed in the Schrodinger wave equation?
Regards
EP

whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"

[Tom Mattson]

Does not have the Galilean view has to do with that newtonian view about an absolute space and time?


It does.


If yes, then there is a break with relativity, but how can you say the Galilean view is right into the Schrodinger complex wave equation? Did Galileo use complex numbers to represent the equations of physics? Did Galileo know something about a decoupled version of space and time, as is expressed in the complex Schrodinger wave equation when dealing with the electron?


The Galilean view of space and time is built into the Schrodinger equation, because it is the quantized version of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is Galilean-covariant. Whether or not Galileo ever used complex numbers is completely irrelevant.


The great break is really in this concept of time and space as decoupled entities -when dealing with the electron- a conception that was abandoned by physicists in that moment they decided to put relativity, as sort of an absolute conceptual framework of reference. From this moment we certainly have an incommensurability problem as I have pointed out several times in this forum.


If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and Schrodinger, then you are right, for the reason I already explained.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and quantum theory, then you are wrong, for the reason I already explained.


What schism? That one that is described by Karl. R. Popper in his book: "Quantum theory and the Schism in Physics",
Of course any theory that pretends to be unified must be Lorentz invariant, but how do you present to your graduate students the fact that QM began with that now infamous SWE? Or do you not teach that equation anymore because it is old QM?


That's easy: We tell our graduate students that the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic, and that if they want to do quantum mechanics at high energies they must use the relativistic quantum theory. It's really just that simple.


Yes, physics must permeate every science a reason why we must make philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of the fundamental of time and space, if as scientists we do not want to be in a cocoon.


"Today research in part of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and even art history, all converge to suggest that the traditional paradigm is somehow askew. That failure to fit is also made increasingly apparent by the historical study of science to which most of our attention is necessarily directed" T.S.K.


But the "schism" you've pointed out simply does not exist. Can you point to a single real problem with the way physics research is being conducted today?


PD: A science that forgets its founders is definitively lost.

I'll remember that if physics ever forgets its founders.

[Epsilon Pi]

The Galilean view of space and time is built into the Schrodinger equation, because it is the quantized version of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is Galilean-covariant. Whether or not Galileo ever used complex numbers is completely irrelevant.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and Schrodinger, then you are right, for the reason I already explained.

That's easy: We tell our graduate students that the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic, and that if they want to do quantum mechanics at high energies they must use the relativistic quantum theory. It's really just that simple.



Well. here is precisely where there is an incommensurability problem, as what I have in mind, is not an equation to be or not to be relativistic, but that conception of time and space that is derived from it: in that conception if I am right, you said, time and space are coupled, and this seems to me wrong. How can you expect that physics permeates all other sciences if it has this unsolved problem?


But the "schism" you've pointed out simply does not exist. Can you point to a single real problem with the way physics research is being conducted today?


The schism is that one that has to do with the conception of time and space that does not allow a "real" decoupled conception of time.
When I say there is an incommensurability problem, it means precisely that as time has been reduced to a space dimension, then there is no chance to have a different conception of time as is expected in non physical sciences such as psychology, linguistics, art history, and even in another conception of physics that includes them both but rationalized in a complex unit, or just in that complex Schrodinger wave equation.
And problems, you really have no problem as you really feel quite well with your coupled conception of time and space, it is us the ones that have the problem.

Regards
EP

[Tom Mattson]

Well. here is precisely where there is an incommensurability problem, as what I have in mind, is not an equation to be or not to be relativistic, but that conception of time and space that is derived from it: in that conception if I am right, you said, time and space are coupled, and this seems to me wrong. How can you expect that physics permeates all other sciences if it has this unsolved problem?


I still don't see that you have a point. Time and space are coupled, whether or not it seems wrong to you. And there is no unsolved problem associated with it.


The schism is that one that has to do with the conception of time and space that does not allow a "real" decoupled conception of time.


But time and space aren't decoupled in reality. There is no schism here.


When I say there is an incommensurability problem, it means precisely that as time has been reduced to a space dimension, then there is no chance to have a different conception of time as is expected in non physical sciences such as psychology, linguistics, art history, and even in another conception of physics that includes them both but rationalized in a complex unit, or just in that complex Schrodinger wave equation.


So the incommensurability problem lies with the other sciences, not with physics. It's up to them to conform with what is known about reality, including the coupling of time and space as in relativity. And I don't know why you're still harping on the Schrodinger equation. If you keep looking at SR and Schrodinger's QM, then of course you'll think there's an incommensurability problem in physics. That's because Schrodinger's equation and SR are incommensurable! But as I have repeatedly said, QM has been reformulated by Klein and Gordon, and by Dirac, in such a way that it is commensurable with SR.

It's time for you to update your knowledge of QM, to the year 1926.


And problems, you really have no problem as you really feel quite well with your coupled conception of time and space, it is us the ones that have the problem.


Precisely.

[kurious]

SETAI:
whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"

Kurious:
Time is just the number of spatial configurations that occur of an ensemble of small masses in one region of space, divided by the number of spatial configurations that occur of another ensemble of the same number of masses in another region of space -
both these numbers of configurations being counted throughout the evolution of a third ensemble from an initial state into a final state.

[Epsilon Pi]

I still don't see that you have a point. Time and space are coupled, whether or not it seems wrong to you. And there is no unsolved problem associated with it.


Time and space are coupled in a philosophical conception derived from special relativity where it is taken as an absolute frame of reference, but why are you so sure there is not another way to present the Lorentz transformation group, in a context not philosophical relativistic?


But time and space aren't decoupled in reality. There is no schism here.


If you see reality as conceived from the point of view of a relativistic conception, you cannot see the other point of view that even a great influential philosopher as Henry Bergson pointed our clearly and dedicated several assays, I mean, the real conception of time.


So the incommensurability problem lies with the other sciences, not with physics. It's up to them to conform with what is known about reality, including the coupling of time and space as in relativity. And I don't know why you're still harping on the Schrodinger equation. If you keep looking at SR and Schrodinger's QM, then of course you'll think there's an incommensurability problem in physics. That's because Schrodinger's equation and SR are incommensurable! But as I have repeatedly said, QM has been reformulated by Klein and Gordon, and by Dirac, in such a way that it is commensurable with SR.
It's time for you to update your knowledge of QM, to the year 1926.


The incommensurability problem has to do with that conception of space and time you take for granted and pretend to impose to other sciences as well.
I am really not interested in a science that has been built with so may "patches" trying to conform it to a flaw conception of reality, instead I have tried to see it from a point of view that included that inherent duality of time and space in a concept of complex unit that permitted to see the whole panorama under a same roof, but you really are not interested anymore in such an endeavor, I know how quite difficult it is for you.
Regards
EP




Precisely.

[Tom Mattson]

Time and space are coupled in a philosophical conception derived from special relativity where it is taken as an absolute frame of reference, but why are you so sure there is not another way to present the Lorentz transformation group, in a context not philosophical relativistic?


You said it yourself: The philosophical conception is derived from SR. And rightly so, because the Lorentz transformation explicitly couples space and time. In order to present the Lorentz transformation in such a way that space and time are decoupled, you would have to change it so that it is not the Lorentz transformation anymore. This is obvious by inspection.

Have you ever seen the Lorentz transformation?


If you see reality as conceived from the point of view of a relativistic conception, you cannot see the other point of view that even a great influential philosopher as Henry Bergson pointed our clearly and dedicated several assays, I mean, the real conception of time.


I haven't read Bergson, nor do I have his writings on my shelves. Why don't you say what you think instead?


The incommensurability problem has to do with that conception of space and time you take for granted and pretend to impose to other sciences as well.


I don't take it for granted. It comes from an experimentally tested model.


I am really not interested in a science that has been built with so may "patches" trying to conform it to a flaw conception of reality,


But by what standard to you determine whether or not a concepton of reality is flawed? I use experimental evidence. Apparently, you don't. But you can't just impose your preconceived notions of space and time on a scientific theory and reject out of hand those theories that don't conform with it. In formulating a conception of reality, one would think that reality should have a say in the matter! Hence, the primacy of experimental evidence, which is squarely on the side of SR and its implications. You can philosophize until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue with observation.


instead I have tried to see it from a point of view that included that inherent duality of time and space in a concept of complex unit that permitted to see the whole panorama under a same roof, but you really are not interested anymore in such an endeavor, I know how quite difficult it is for you.


But you seem to be doing this from a position of near total ignorance of the relevant scientific knowledge. You keep chanting, "Schrodinger, Schrodinger", when it is quite clearly the case that the inconsistency you keep pointing out comes from comparing a nonrelativistic theory to relativity.

[Epsilon Pi]

You said it yourself: The philosophical conception is derived from SR. And rightly so, because the Lorentz transformation explicitly couples space and time. In order to present the Lorentz transformation in such a way that space and time are decoupled, you would have to change it so that it is noobvious by inspection.
t the Lorentz transformation anymore. This is Have you ever seen the Lorentz transformation?

It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!
Is it not true that one of the greatest achievement due to Einstein was to have shown that Maxwell's equations remained invariant with the Lorentz transformation group?
Did you know that those Maxwell's equations as applied to EE are based on complex numbers or else in another framework?


I haven't read Bergson, nor do I have his writings on my shelves. Why don't you say what you think instead?

Have I not been saying what I think on this forum? Or do we have a problem with paradigms?


I don't take it for granted. It comes from an experimentally tested model.

The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically


But by what standard to you determine whether or not a concepton of reality is flawed? I use experimental evidence. Apparently, you don't. But you can't just impose your preconceived notions of space and time on a scientific theory and reject out of hand those theories that don't conform with it. In formulating a conception of reality, one would think that reality should have a say in the matter! Hence, the primacy of experimental evidence, which is squarely on the side of SR and its implications. You can philosophize until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue with observation.

No, no, you have not really got my point: all those fundamental equations of physics that have been validated with experimental evidence, can be deduced by using a complex unit based on Euler relation that has the remarkable property to remain the same with those processes that represent change: I mean integration and differentiation, a reason why in EE, we work with algebraic equations instead of differential equations. Is not this remarkable property of Euler relation the one claimed by Einstein to represent the covariant laws of nature?


But you seem to be doing this from a position of near total ignorance of the relevant scientific knowledge. You keep chanting, "Schrodinger, Schrodinger", when it is quite clearly the case that the inconsistency you keep pointing out comes from comparing a nonrelativistic theory to relativity.
No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform. Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity? Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?

My best regards
EP

[brodix]

Ep,

All tests of space and time necessarily start from the subjective perspective and from that perspective they are connected.
Spacetime is a reference frame for bodies in motion, but space was no universal reference frame, so we insist it doesn't exist except as a reference frame, yet all our reference frames exist within an equilibrium that we take for granted.
Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.
So it has the same problem with understanding time. It only sees the hands of the clock moving, so it proposes an additional inert dimension called time, without properly processing its own insight that all such motion is relative and so that a measure of motion implies a reference frame that is effectively in motion in the opposite direction. As there is no objective frame of reference, the hands of the clock are the centerpoint of their own frame of reference, as well as a point of reference on the face. So that to them, eveerything else is rotating counterclockwise. All of this because of the equilibrium which science overlooks in the first place.

Logic and math are not necessarily synonymous. Without the equilibrium of logic, the reference frame of math has a tendency to start counting angels on the head of a pin.

[Tom Mattson]

It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!


You have yet to explain why it is wrong. Have you not read the announcement prohibiting this sort of unscientific speculation?


Is it not true that one of the greatest achievement due to Einstein was to have shown that Maxwell's equations remained invariant with the Lorentz transformation group?


Yes.


Did you know that those Maxwell's equations as applied to EE are based on complex numbers or else in another framework?


I have seen Maxwell's equations written in terms of complex numbers. I have also seen them written as tensor equations.

What is your point?


Have I not been saying what I think on this forum? Or do we have a problem with paradigms?


My remark was in response to your reference to Bergson.

But apart from references to Bergson and Popper, all you have been doing is presenting conjecture and misconceptions.


The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically


First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

And Fourth, it really doesn't matter if a scientific theory matches your philosophical taste. If that be the case, and the theory is consistent with evidence, then it's time to change your philosophy.


No, no, you have not really got my point: all those fundamental equations of physics that have been validated with experimental evidence, can be deduced by using a complex unit based on Euler relation that has the remarkable property to remain the same with those processes that represent change: I mean integration and differentiation, a reason why in EE, we work with algebraic equations instead of differential equations. Is not this remarkable property of Euler relation the one claimed by Einstein to represent the covariant laws of nature?


No, it is not. Einstein did not make use of the Euler identity at all. I have no idea of why you think it's relevant.


No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform.


Relativity is not an "absolute frame of reference".

And yes, all physical laws must conform to it.


Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity?


Because relativity has been borne out by experiment. Schrodinger has too, but we know where its limitations are.


Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?


It doesn't matter if you can find another path to SR. Indeed, more than one derivation of the Lorentz transformation exists. The point is that whichever path you take, it must have as its destination the Lorentz transformation, in which space and time are manifestly coupled. There is simply no way around it.

[omin]

is it possible for humans to start thinking in terms of a global time;a common refrence point,so that we simply start asking each other "what is the time" instead of "what is the time there".i think it could help if we think different and also if we are to determine the motion of celestial bodies and their effects on where we live.

Off the top of my head, that could be made possible by considering time the same upon the entire surface of the globe and using a speed standard as a reference only. We are used to the concept of time being linked with the visible the position of the sun, our daytime. Without this solar link, we can't imagine the sun easily in the sky of our far off friends during communication.

[Tom Mattson]

Epsilon Pi, it is our policy not to allow the kind of unsubstantiated opinions that you have been airing at Physics Forums. I am going to go through your last post and point out to you all the points that need to be proven.

Please answer the points, and do not respond with more conjecture.

If you respond as you have been, I will be compelled to start issuing warnings to you for posting crackpot material at Physics Forums.

It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!


Prove that it is wrong.

I already asked you by what standard you judge a theory or paradigm to be flawed, but you did not answer.


The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically


Prove that the Lorentz transformation can be non-relativistic via the use of complex numbers.

Prove that both "time coupled to space" and "time decoupled from space" can be acccomodated by this new Lorentz transformation.

Prove that the notions of "time coupled to space" and "time decoupled from space" are not contradictory.

Give a reference to the experimental evidence "such as the case of one electron" that demands time decoupled from space.


No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform. Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity? Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?


Present the other framework based on Euler's identity that can "cope reality".

[Chronos]

Well, I am confused. What part of Euler is relevant to this conversation?

[Tom Mattson]

All tests of space and time necessarily start from the subjective perspective and from that perspective they are connected.


The objectivity is contained in the connection itself. That is, while it is readily admitted that we can only see things from our point of view, we can calculate what will be seen from any point of view, via the LT.


Spacetime is a reference frame for bodies in motion, but space was no universal reference frame, so we insist it doesn't exist except as a reference frame,


Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.


yet all our reference frames exist within an equilibrium that we take for granted.


That's the second time someone has said that something is taken for granted. Why is it that you and Epsilon Pi think that? Why can you not see that if something is corroborated experimentally, then it is not taken for granted?


Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.


How's that?


So it has the same problem with understanding time. It only sees the hands of the clock moving, so it proposes an additional inert dimension called time, without properly processing its own insight that all such motion is relative and so that a measure of motion implies a reference frame that is effectively in motion in the opposite direction.


I hope you don't think we derive the idea of time from literal rotating clock hands! It can be anything: digital watches, atomic clocks, decaying muons, etc...


As there is no objective frame of reference, the hands of the clock are the centerpoint of their own frame of reference, as well as a point of reference on the face. So that to them, eveerything else is rotating counterclockwise.


That is irrelevant. What matters is that they keep time in our frame of reference. But as I said, there is no need to have literal rotating clock hands.


All of this because of the equilibrium which science overlooks in the first place.


Care to explain, in concrete terms and with evidence?

[Tom Mattson]

Well, I am confused. What part of Euler is relevant to this conversation?

I'm pretty sure I know what he's trying to get at.

He has correctly noted that the LT is derived from the postulates of SR as applied to Maxwell's equations. But he has also noted that Maxwell's equations can be written as algebraic equations instead of differential equaitons, which means that he's talking about the Fourier transform: that's where Euler would come into it. He's thinking that, since Maxwell's equations can be written in different forms (differential and algebraic) that a "fourier transformed" Lorentz transformation can be derived in which space and time are decoupled.

If that's what he means, then he is wrong, because a Fourier transform leads to the frequency domain, and it is well-known that the quantity kμ=(k,ω) is a 4-vector, which transforms in the exact same way as the quantity xμ=(x,t). So if we look in the frequency domain, we don't lose coupled space and time. Instead we also see coupled wave vectors and frequencies.

[kurious]

Space and time can't be decoupled for normal mass:
I think Minkowski said: "who has seen a place that did not occur at a time and a time
(clock) that did not occur at a place".
To violate Lorentz transformations needs faster than light travel.
It is FTL speeds that anyone challenging standard relatvity must prove.

[Epsilon Pi]

You have yet to explain why it is wrong. Have you not read the announcement prohibiting this sort of unscientific speculation?


You certainly have the authority on this forum to prohibit, whatever you want, but I am sorry you must make philosophy if you want to make good science. From my first post on this forum my point was established clearly, and it has to do with that impossibility to include the third in your reasoning. I hope you have read Aristotle, as it was him and his prevailing logic my starting point. The greatest mistake of philosophers at all times and as so scientists is precisely to think that it is not possible to conceive a framework without that logic; down in this same post, in your answers, there, we have a clear example of that mistake.


First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Wrong, there is the possibility to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation" if you use complex numbers as starting point. Behind complex numbers there is clearly a radical duality; there is the chance to have an equal sign with the third included, as in Euler relation; a symbol for separation of two different, as it were, orders of reality, so it is that symbol the one that permits us not to confuse, pearls and apples, space and time, wave and particle.


Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

If your paradigm do not permit to see that experimental evidence, you will not see it.


Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

Yes, here is the point I pointed out up about the impossibility to include the third in your constructs. Fortunately we have Euler relation, with its mentioned remarkable property that makes it an ideal tool to represent the covariant laws of nature.
Yes, for the sake of applications we couple time to space, we close our systems, but that certainly does not mean all reality, as the same uncertainty principle has the chance to have both at the same time, a wave manifestation and a particle manifestation or complemetarity.


And Fourth, it really doesn't matter if a scientific theory matches your philosophical taste. If that be the case, and the theory is consistent with evidence, then it's time to change your philosophy.

It really does not have anything to do with a taste in this case, remember that you see what you have been prepared to see; if your reasoning does not permit to see the chance to have a different way to cope reality, something very wrong is going with it, don't you think?


No, it is not. Einstein did not make use of the Euler identity at all. I have no idea of why you think it's relevant.

Yes, I know he didn't and somewhere on this forum I said why it is relevant, if the arguments given above about the third does not seem to you so.


And yes, all physical laws must conform to it.
Because relativity has been borne out by experiment. Schrodinger has too, but we know where its limitations are.

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment? I thought it was by the work Einstein did when putting the Lorentz transformation group in a philosophical context known as relativity. Are not the Lorentz transformation group as equations the ones that permit validation with the experimental evidence?


It doesn't matter if you can find another path to SR. Indeed, more than one derivation of the Lorentz transformation exists. The point is that whichever path you take, it must have as its destination the Lorentz transformation, in which space and time are manifestly coupled. There is simply no way around it.

To be or not to be decoupled is certainly not a matter of the Lorentz transformation group per ser, but it is:
- on the one side the result of the way we interpret reality for the sake of application,
- and on the other a result of that reality "out there" with uncertainty included, so in this sense it is our symbolism the one that must be changed if it does not fit to it.

I hope I have been suficiently clear, as I do not pretend to post anymore regarding this thread, for me it is closed. Thank you so much for this most interesting experience!

Best regards
EP
PD: Do you have on this forum a way of presenting my findinds about Euler relation and its relation to the fundamental equations of physics?, if yes, I gladly will present that framework.

[Tom Mattson]

You certainly have the authority on this forum to prohibit, whatever you want, but I am sorry you must make philosophy if you want to make good science.


But you have to make good philosophy to make good science. That means you have to provide arguments and evidence for your position, which you have consistently failed to do.


From my first post on this forum my point was established clearly, and it has to do with that impossibility to include the third in your reasoning. I hope you have read Aristotle, as it was him and his prevailing logic my starting point. The greatest mistake of philosophers at all times and as so scientists is precisely to think that it is not possible to conceive a framework without that logic; down in this same post, in your answers, there, we have a clear example of that mistake.


Are you saying that it is a mistake not to use an "included middle" in our logic?


Tom: First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Epsilon Pi: Wrong, there is the possibility to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation" if you use complex numbers as starting point.


Wrong. It is possible to start from the Lorentz transformation and recover Einstein's 2 postulates from them. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformations explicitly encode the coupling of space and time. In fact, it is the interdependence of spatial and temporal parameters in the Lorentz transformation that physicists define as the coupling of space and time. As I said before, if you change the LT in such a way that space and time are decoupled, then it won't be the LT anymore.

But since you won't even look at the Lorentz transformations, it is hopeless to try to convince you on this. All I can do is correct you.


Behind complex numbers there is clearly a radical duality;


Duality between which two concepts, exactly?


there is the chance to have an equal sign with the third included,


Again, what is "the third"?


as in Euler relation; a symbol for separation of two different, as it were, orders of reality, so it is that symbol the one that permits us not to confuse, pearls and apples, space and time, wave and particle.


Since you have not said what those two orders of reality are, or how the Euler relation can be used to separate them, this makes absolutely no sense.


Tom: Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

Epsilon Pi: If your paradigm do not permit to see that experimental evidence, you will not see it.


So that means you are not going to present it???

This is a cheap cop-out that is typical of crackpots who cannot defend their position.


Tom: Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

Epsilon Pi: Yes, here is the point I pointed out up about the impossibility to include the third in your constructs.


It seems clear that you are saying that "the third" is "the included middle", but without your explicitly saying so I am not going to assume it. I will point out, however, that using an included middle reasoning system is hopeless because if the compound statement (P and ~P) is true, then it is possible to prove any statement "true", whether it is true or not.

Surely it should not be thought that this is good philosophy.


Fortunately we have Euler relation, with its mentioned remarkable property that makes it an ideal tool to represent the covariant laws of nature.


The Euler relation does not "represent the covariant laws of nature". Tensor equations do that.


Yes, for the sake of applications we couple time to space, we close our systems, but that certainly does not mean all reality, as the same uncertainty principle has the chance to have both at the same time, a wave manifestation and a particle manifestation or complemetarity.


You just don't get it. "We" don't couple time to space for any applications! Space and time are coupled, and "we" are powerless to do anything about it. The coupling of space and time as exhibited explicitly in the Lorentz transformations is a derived result of the 2 postulates of relativity, which are also features of our universe. And there is no analog between the coupling of time and space in SR and the unertainty principle in QM. Both are derived independently of the other, and the two do not have any formal similarity.


It really does not have anything to do with a taste in this case,


Of course it does. In this thread, all you have done is deny that time and space are coupled because it seems wrong to you. You don't have a single argument, or a single piece of experimental evidence to support your position. If there were ever a more clear cut instance of someone rejecting a scientific theory because it does not sit well with his philosophical taste, then I have not seen it.


remember that you see what you have been prepared to see; if your reasoning does not permit to see the chance to have a different way to cope reality, something very wrong is going with it, don't you think?


This is just another cheap cop-out. You have not presented a "different way to cope reality", so how could I be expected to comment on it?

In any case, I would say that the mathematical description of the universe is not subject to such a rash rewriting as you would have us do. You are simply wrong to think that both a statement and its negation can both be descriptive of our universe.

I'll note here that you have referred to complementarity, and I suspect that this is a veiled reference to quantum logic. If so, then note that that will not rescue your position against the excluded middle (if that is indeed your position) because multiple-valued logics (such as those that can accomodate complementarity) can still have an excluded middle.



Yes, I know he didn't and somewhere on this forum I said why it is relevant, if the arguments given above about the third does not seem to you so.


You never presented an argument. All you said was that it is a mistake not to use "the third". You did not say why, nor did you even say what "the third" is.


Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment?


Yes. Einstein opened his 1905 paper by noting the experimental failure of Galilean relativity as applied to Maxwell's equations.

See On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf).


I thought it was by the work Einstein did when putting the Lorentz transformation group in a philosophical context known as relativity.


You thought wrong. Einstein derived the LT from 2 postulates: one physical, one mathematical. There's no metaphysics involved here.


Are not the Lorentz transformation group as equations the ones that permit validation with the experimental evidence?


They are. But the postulates also permit such validation.

See The Experimental Basis for Special Relativity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html).


To be or not to be decoupled is certainly not a matter of the Lorentz transformation group per ser, but it is:
- on the one side the result of the way we interpret reality for the sake of application,


Wrong. As previously noted, time and space are manifestly linked via the Lorentz transformation. This is the definition of the concept of the coupling of time and space.


- and on the other a result of that reality "out there" with uncertainty included, so in this sense it is our symbolism the one that must be changed if it does not fit to it.


You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. The coupling of time and space as in the Lorentz transformation fits perfectly well with the uncertainty principle. I have repeatedly referred you to Klein-Gordon and to Dirac. But I'm convinced that you haven't investigated it, so this is hopeless.


I hope I have been suficiently clear, as I do not pretend to post anymore regarding this thread, for me it is closed.


You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.


Thank you so much for this most interesting experience!


I wish I could say the same. You did exaclty what I asked you not to do: present unsubstantiated opinions with no proof or evidence.


PD: Do you have on this forum a way of presenting my findinds about Euler relation and its relation to the fundamental equations of physics?, if yes, I gladly will present that framework.

You can attach a file to a post, or you can simply write it in a post.

[enigma]

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment?

GPS systems wouldn't work without taking relativistic time dilation into account. I invite you to try it out for yourself.

Step-by-step instructions on how the receivers calculate their position is freely available on the web, as are the pseudo-random-noise signals from the satellites themselves.

I assure you that you won't get a correct result by triangulating with three satellites. You need a fourth to account for the relativistic clock bias.

[brodix]

Tom,

The objectivity is contained in the connection itself. That is, while it is readily admitted that we can only see things from our point of view, we can calculate what will be seen from any point of view, via the LT.

Any point of view is subjective. In fact the very act of defining any kind of order requires a point of view. That doesn't mean that nature requires a point of view. My reference here is that a point of view is just that, a point and from that point of view, space and time are fundamentally connected, as it takes time for the point to move in space. The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context. Temperature is a more objective measure of motion, as it is a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

I'm afraid you've lost me on that. If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time? Space being the state and time being the motion? Presumably all reference frames are in motion, because they are relative to one another, so there would be no way to determine which might be in motion and which might not be.

That's the second time someone has said that something is taken for granted. Why is it that you and Epsilon Pi think that? Why can you not see that if something is corroborated experimentally, then it is not taken for granted?

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium. In fact Einstein added the cosmological constant to balance out the effects of gravity, because while he realized the reference frame of space isn't fixed, he assumed there was some more basic equilibrium to the universe. Since then theorists have determined that at the very least, space must be very close to this balance for the universe to be as stable as it is. Omega=1. Yet there is the assumption that this is sheer coincidence and the universe could as easily be collapsing in on itself, or expanding into nothingness.

Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.

How's that?

Not all science is unconsciously reductionistic, in fact much of scientific inquiry is that attempt to see beyond the subjective. That being said, I refer first to my first point, in that simply determining principles that apply to any subjective perspective doesn't make an observation objective, it just makes it subjectively general.

Second, I will refer to the primary point I keep making in these discussions; That if you are measuring motion, then the frame of reference is in motion as well and is a counter to the point of reference, otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through. Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field. It is all other bodies, which are in motion and as I've pointed out, there is a general scientific agreement that they do exist in a larger equilibrium, so if you have isolated out a particular motion as a reference, then this leaves a void in that larger equilibrium. As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

I hope you don't think we derive the idea of time from literal rotating clock hands! It can be anything: digital watches,

You are simply seeing the abstract units, not the process that measures them. As I've pointed out, units of time go from beginning to end, while the process goes on to the next, leaving the old. This is a good example of the subjective nature of time, as we tend to view units of time as sequential, because we only view them from one point. The reality is that there are people all around the earth and they all have overlapping units of time, so that as a day is dawning in one part of the world, it is fading in another part and the process of time is going on to new units as it leaves the old.

atomic clocks, decaying muons,

Regular processes that we can effectively use to measure standard units. Notice how we associate the marking of the unit with decay. Meanwhile the process goes on to the next measure...

etc...

As in?

That is irrelevant. What matters is that they keep time in our frame of reference. But as I said, there is no need to have literal rotating clock hands.

What is our frame of reference? The earth rotating relative to the sun? From our perspective, it is the sun that is moving from east to west, but from a more objective perspective, it is the earth that is moving, as it rotates west to east.


Care to explain, in concrete terms and with evidence?

I feel I have been, but that is only my frame of reference, so my question is to you; Care to listen with as much willingness to agree as to disagree?

regards,

brodix

ps. While our logical processes have much in common with the linear cause and effect process of time, our emotions and politics have much in common with the general level of distributive activity that is temperature.

[kurious]

Tom Mattson:
You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Kurious:
Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?
There are scientists on these forums and there are plenty of physicists too...

[Epsilon Pi]

Hello Mr Mattson, as we have entered in sort of vicious circle or in an incommensurability problem I have prepared a paper in pdf, it is about 2OOkb, and the system only permits 56kb, could you please help me in this sense? Thanks
Regards
EP

[Epsilon Pi]

Thanks Kurious for giving me a hand, but there we have a problem that will not be solved with discussions, as "schools guided by different paradigms are always slightly at cross-purposes"
My best regards
EP
Tom Mattson:
You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Kurious:
Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?
There are scientists on these forums and there are plenty of physicists too...

[Epsilon Pi]

I have not denied at any moment the experimental evidence that can be obtained with the Lorentz transformation group, but the way it has been put in a relativistic philosophical framework. In fact one the best things we have from that group is that with them Maxwell's equations remain invariant.
Regards
EP
GPS systems wouldn't work without taking relativistic time dilation into account. I invite you to try it out for yourself.

Step-by-step instructions on how the receivers calculate their position is freely available on the web, as are the pseudo-random-noise signals from the satellites themselves.

I assure you that you won't get a correct result by triangulating with three satellites. You need a fourth to account for the relativistic clock bias.

[Tom Mattson]

Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?

That should be obvious!

Logic and evidence define what is rigorous and scientific.

[Tom Mattson]

Any point of view is subjective. In fact the very act of defining any kind of order requires a point of view. That doesn't mean that nature requires a point of view. My reference here is that a point of view is just that, a point and from that point of view, space and time are fundamentally connected, as it takes time for the point to move in space.


Of course any pont of view is subjective. But it is not from any single subjective frame of reference that we say that space and time are coupled. It is because of the objective relationship that connects all frames of reference that we say that space and time are fundamentally connected.


The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context.


What?


Temperature is a more objective measure of motion, as it is a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.


Temperature is no more objective that time. It is not Lorentz invariant.


Tom: Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

brodix: I'm afraid you've lost me on that.


Then study relativity, and stop making up terms.


If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time?


Yes. That doesn't mean that spacetime is a frame of reference.


My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium.


Then why do you say that the point of view taken by physics on spacetime is "taken for granted"?


Not all science is unconsciously reductionistic, in fact much of scientific inquiry is that attempt to see beyond the subjective. That being said, I refer first to my first point, in that simply determining principles that apply to any subjective perspective doesn't make an observation objective, it just makes it subjectively general.


How does "subjectively general" differ from "objective"?


Second, I will refer to the primary point I keep making in these discussions; That if you are measuring motion, then the frame of reference is in motion as well


Why say that? If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.


and is a counter to the point of reference,


What do you mean by "counter to the point of reference"?


otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.


Who presumes what now?


Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.


What frame of refernce?


It is all other bodies, which are in motion and as I've pointed out, there is a general scientific agreement that they do exist in a larger equilibrium, so if you have isolated out a particular motion as a reference, then this leaves a void in that larger equilibrium.


What???

When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.


As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.


We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?


You are simply seeing the abstract units, not the process that measures them.


No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.


As I've pointed out, units of time go from beginning to end, while the process goes on to the next, leaving the old. This is a good example of the subjective nature of time, as we tend to view units of time as sequential, because we only view them from one point. The reality is that there are people all around the earth and they all have overlapping units of time, so that as a day is dawning in one part of the world, it is fading in another part and the process of time is going on to new units as it leaves the old.


This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.


Regular processes that we can effectively use to measure standard units. Notice how we associate the marking of the unit with decay. Meanwhile the process goes on to the next measure...


We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.



As in?


As in any time-dependent process with a known period or rate.


What is our frame of reference? The earth rotating relative to the sun? From our perspective, it is the sun that is moving from east to west, but from a more objective perspective, it is the earth that is moving, as it rotates west to east.


Let me help: It is the Earth that is rotating.
The acceleration can be measured.


I feel I have been, but that is only my frame of reference, so my question is to you;


You feel wrong. You have not presented any evidence as to why you think science overlooks any "equilibrium". Nor have you presented any specific cases in which this oversight has been been exhibited, nor have you even explained what the problem is, in your opinion. All you have done is assert that science is overlooking something.

Well, that's not very helpful!


Care to listen with as much willingness to agree as to disagree?


Always. Do you care to do the same? And do you care to present actual evidence to back up your claims?

[kurious]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

[Epsilon Pi]

Thinking and thinking in your position, and trying to be on your side, I really thanks to T.S.K and his landmark work, as only through it I can understand your reticence to even consider another point of view. You really are the best interpreter of normal science I have ever met, but paraphrasing T.S.K, interpretation presupossed a paradigm, and yours is quite clear, a philosophical conception of reality called relativity, which is part now of normal science, "an enterprise that, as we have seen, aims to refine, extend, and articulate a paradigm that is already in existence."
Is not this the reason why what seems to you so obvious is not for others?
In regards to your claiming of evidence regarding my proposal, next week I will look a good site to publish four papers, that I don't pretend will convince you, but my aim is just to share a different point of view in presenting those fundamental equations of physics in a rigorous way, I mean, mathematically but by means of complex numbers, as it were, with the third included; to share them with those all interested in the evolution of philosophy of science, and in another point of view regarding it.
In the meanwhile I thought you might be interested in my paper at my profile, Physics, Edgar Morin and Complex thinking. As an engineer, as scientist, as philosopher my main concern have been always not to be in sort of cocoon but try to understand and see different points of view independently of my own.
My best regards
EP

That should be obvious!

Logic and evidence define what is rigorous and scientific.

[Tom Mattson]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

When's the last time you saw a would-be theorist at PF even try to put his ideas on mathematical footing?

[Tom Mattson]

Thinking and thinking in your position, and trying to be on your side, I really thanks to T.S.K and his landmark work, as only through it I can understand your reticence to even consider another point of view.


You haven't presented another point of view!

You won't present arguments or evidence, and you won't answer questions. I can't read your mind.

[north]

[QUOTE=Chronos]Crap = crap. Time and space are inseparable,
___________________________________________

really!! explain!!

[north]

At the infinitesimal 1D region of spacetime, space and time cannot be distinguished and both are curved by the very strong orthogonal forces as absolute constant localized angular accelerations. Because of the extreme forces, the constant change of directions of these accelerations, once started, are very difficult to vary hence the changing direction is conserved and these can become a principle of directional invariance.
___________________________________________

of course logically 1D cannot exist in the first place,regardless of minuteness of depth.

[north]

time's essence is change. and i mean beyond biology.for inanimate substance change(combinations) was here well before our existence.

[brodix]

Tom,

Of course any pont of view is subjective. But it is not from any single subjective frame of reference that we say that space and time are coupled. It is because of the objective relationship that connects all frames of reference that we say that space and time are fundamentally connected.

I do realize what the position of relativity is. My argument is that space is a first order equilibrium that is the basis for physical reality and that time is a third order method of measuring the motion of the physical.

The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context.


What?

You are measuring a specific action, relative to its context. That is why, when you change the context, such as putting the timekeeping device in outer space, the measure of time changes.


Temperature is no more objective that time. It is not Lorentz invariant.

Lets use a crowd of people as our example; If we are to measure some general level of activity on a scale, such as the number of people moving, relative to the total, what their average speed is, etc. it is a form of temperature reading, just as a thermometer measures the level of atomic activity in its location. Now if we were to draw a line of the path any particular person is taking, it would be their timeline. Now this line is an abstraction because no two people can occupy the same space, so only by all people moving about is it possible for any one person to keep moving. I can make this model much more complex, such as comparing the forming of relationships and how they slow movement down to the relationship of energy to matter, etc. but I’ will stick to the point in question; That temperature records a more basic, general level of activity and as such is objective in the it doesn’t take the perspective of any one person. In fact there have been recent studies on the property of nanotubes, in which temperature has ceased to function because the size in question has gone below the level at which atoms are judged statistically and are individual operators.


Then study relativity, and stop making up terms.

You like to tell others to provide examples and obviously you have a more subtle understanding of the specific understanding of spacetime as being something other than a reference frame for bodies in action. Since I’m assuming this is still a forum for education and exchanging of ideas, rather then the soapbox we all treat it as, why don’t you try to give me a short explanation?

If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time?

Yes. That doesn't mean that spacetime is a frame of reference.

You deleted my last sentence; Space is a state and time is motion.


My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium.

Then why do you say that the point of view taken by physics on spacetime is "taken for granted"?

Because of the assumption that the balance between the rate of expansion and the force of gravity is coincidental, rather then the consequence of a basic equilibrium.

How does "subjectively general" differ from "objective"?

That sentence wasn’t clear. I’m sorry. I should have said something along the lines of; generally applicable to all subjective perspectives.

Why say that? If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.

This is my whole point!!! What we are measuring is MOTION!!! The frame isn’t an absolute and the point of reference is a valid frame in itself, therefore the reference frame is effectively moving in the opposite direction of the point. In systems where the point and the frame are closer in size, such as the moon to the earth, this effect is far more evident then where the relationship isn’t comparable, such as an individual person vs. the earth. But then a child riding in a car sees the world as moving, rather then himself, just as we see the sun as moving, rather then the earth.

What do you mean by "counter to the point of reference"?

The “equal and opposite reaction.”


otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.


Who presumes what now?

Those who think of the frame of reference to motion as being at rest.

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.


What frame of refernce? [quote]

This one;

“If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.”

[quote] What???


When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

I assumed you would understand that I was developing an abstraction of the “equal and opposite reaction.”

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

The uncertainty principle is relativistic. Position is space and momentum is time.


No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

I suppose the rotating earth isn’t either?

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Units of time vs. the process of time. The process is what exists, ie. the present. Units come and go.

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

And any unit of time goes from beginning to end, while the process continues.

As in any time-dependent process with a known period or rate.

What processes are not time dependant?


Let me help: It is the Earth that is rotating.
The acceleration can be measured.

We are in agreement on that, but it isn’t the point. The day is a creation of the fact that we subjectively exist at only one point on the surface of the earth.

You feel wrong. You have not presented any evidence as to why you think science overlooks any "equilibrium". Nor have you presented any specific cases in which this oversight has been been exhibited, nor have you even explained what the problem is, in your opinion. All you have done is assert that science is overlooking something.

Well, that's not very helpful!

Science currently proposes a theory of the universe in which 96% is invisible to everything but the math, because it chooses not to see any equilibrium between collapsing mass and expanding energy. So now that they have found old galaxies and huge galaxy structures at the very edge of the visible universe, the only response is to scratch their heads and wonder how such structures grew up so fast, not whether their model deserves to be questioned. Does the word “epicycle” come to mind?


Always. Do you care to do the same? And do you care to present actual evidence to back up your claims?

What would you allow as evidence? A personal lightning bolt? Sometimes lousy reception is due to a poorly tuned receiver, not a weak signal.

[brodix]

Straightening out the quote marks;

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.


Who presumes what now?

Those who think of the frame of reference to motion as being at rest.


Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.


What frame of refernce?

This one;

“If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.”

What???


When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

I assumed you would understand that I was developing an abstraction of the “equal and opposite reaction.”


As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

The uncertainty principle is relativistic. Position is space and momentum is time.



No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

I suppose the rotating earth isn’t either?



This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Units of time vs. the process of time. The process is what exists, ie. the present. Units come and go.


We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

And any unit of time goes from beginning to end, while the process continues.

[Epsilon Pi]

Mr Mattson and everyone interested,

Here is a paper I have prepared specially for this forum and a consequence of the dialogues I have had in it:

Is the Pendulum an Open Dynamic System?
Abstract.
In this paper the pendulum and its approximation factor, that can be validated
with what is observed in the reality "out there", is presented by using the
complex basic unit system concept based on Euler relation. This paper is a
result and a promise made in Physics Forum, in its sub forum Theory
Development, where I have been participating under the pseudonym Epsilon Pi.
Here I want to show that it is possible to cope the fundamental equations of
physics from a point of view or framework that includes the third, which means
mathematically speaking, by using complex numbers.
Comments: 7 pages, 1 figure, 1 table and equations.
The url is:
http://www.geocities.com/paterninaedgar/Papers/Pendulum.pdf
The next paper will be:
The Schrodinger's wave equation and the rationalization of duality

Thanks in advance for your time, comments or criticism.
Best regards
EP

You haven't presented another point of view!

You won't present arguments or evidence, and you won't answer questions. I can't read your mind.

[rob_we]

guys, what is time? If you consider time as a dimension containing momentary snaphots of mass (like in a film for examle) time is nothing but a movement or an expansion of a container carrying that mass maybe ;) www.donut-universe.info :)

[RAD4921]

I suggest the book, "The End of Time:The next revolution in physics" by physicist Julian Barbour.

[brodix]

rob we,

is that time, or is it information? Like pages of a book, they just sit there.

time is only a dimension if the frame of reference is at rest, but you are measuring motion and the point of reference consitutes an opposing frame of reference, just smaller, so the larger frame is not at rest, just moving proportionally slower in the opposing direction.
All of the various energies and particles that come together to form any particular event travel their own path through all other such forces. those which constitute you, as well as those which you move through. The only reality is this energy and the information it is currently manifesting. Time is simply a method of measuring these relationships. The reason it is so important to us is that it is the measure of the particular point of reference against its subjective context, which pretty much describes our intellectual perception of reality.

rad,

I suppose I only read several reviews and interviews when the book came out, but his seemed to be proposing time as a form of eternal dimension, with our place on it as a form of anthropocentrism, ie. we are here, or where ever, because that is just where we happen to be. As I've been trying to point out to Tom, the notion of time as a dimension rests on the assumption that the frame of reference is at rest and the problem with this is that it is completely counter to the concept of relativity. Since there is no universal frame of reference, we can only measure the motion of one point against the position of others. Since no positions are absolute, then the references are moving in the opposite direction.
Tom seems to be on leave....

[Tom Mattson]

Tom seems to be on leave....

Not on leave, just taking my time. I'm trying to figure out if I'm not understanding you, or if you're just nuts. :biggrin:

[Epsilon Pi]

That's what I like from you Mr Mattson, you take your time, and please do, nobody is in a hurry!, but why must we take always both ends? why do we not try to take an intermediate position?...not that you do not understand, not that we're nuts. If we talk to each in different languages it does not matter too much if we do not understand, except that we must learn a common language, must we not?... or at least that language must be used properly.

My best regards and thank you for your time!
EP
PS: and that's why we are here, don't we?
Not on leave, just taking my time. I'm trying to figure out if I'm not understanding you, or if you're just nuts. :biggrin:

[Antonio Lao]

of course logically 1D cannot exist in the first place,regardless of minuteness of depth.
Maybe, I think, you mean 1D cannot be separately visualized? What is visualizable is always 3D although even that we can at most only sees 2D at a time, one component of the 3D is always hidden from our view. But the moment when we start to move the hidden view starts to be seen. So we can say that motion is another way of viewing hidden dimensions.

But motion is relative (special and general relativity). So what is moving? Is space moving? Is time moving? Can a spacetime point moves? What is the absolute reference frame for these motions (of space, of time, of mass, of spacetime)? The same aged old question about the aether.

[brodix]

Tom,

Is that because the implications of my being right are not computable?

I realize that the scientific establishment would consider me as an archtypical crank, except for the detail that, while I do put a fair amount of personal brain time into aspects of this, rather then being the classical obsessive, I am too ADD to be able to put a lot of emotional commitment into it. It's just that it underlays the intellectual equilibrium of my personal philosophy. Whether you believe me or not, my attraction to it is its logic, so if you can provide me with an equally sensible explanation for why I am wrong, I would be disappointed, but understand that I would be more enlightened.

I would also say that in the various conversations I've had on this topic over the years, a fair number of people have understood the basic point I'm making, but many don't and of those, most would throw out a few terms as though I don't understand them and drop the subject, and then there have been a few who would take the time to pick at every loose end they could find, such as your self. It is these people who cause me to do the most introspection and consideration of these ideas and for that I am grateful.

[Chronos]

Tom,

Is that because the implications of my being right are not computable?

I realize that the scientific establishment would consider me as an archtypical crank, except for the detail that, while I do put a fair amount of personal brain time into aspects of this, rather then being the classical obsessive, I am too ADD to be able to put a lot of emotional commitment into it. It's just that it underlays the intellectual equilibrium of my personal philosophy. Whether you believe me or not, my attraction to it is its logic, so if you can provide me with an equally sensible explanation for why I am wrong, I would be disappointed, but understand that I would be more enlightened.

I would also say that in the various conversations I've had on this topic over the years, a fair number of people have understood the basic point I'm making, but many don't and of those, most would throw out a few terms as though I don't understand them and drop the subject, and then there have been a few who would take the time to pick at every loose end they could find, such as your self. It is these people who cause me to do the most introspection and consideration of these ideas and for that I am grateful.Not computable = not reality. When observation and mathematical facts accumulate against you it is time to let go of your failed theories.

[brodix]

chronos,

Then I suppose you can explain why it makes sense to define motion in terms of a frame of reference at rest. The object in motion is its own frame of reference, so wouldn't they both be moving relative to one another?
So far as I can tell, through the many examples I've given, observation is in my favor.

[Chronos]

chronos,

Then I suppose you can explain why it makes sense to define motion in terms of a frame of reference at rest. The object in motion is its own frame of reference, so wouldn't they both be moving relative to one another?
So far as I can tell, through the many examples I've given, observation is in my favor.At rest with respect to what? There are no absolute 'rest' frames. All objects are in motion relative to all other objects. The only reference frame they agree on is 'c'. No two observers will ever agree on anything aside from the fact 'c' is constant in both reference frames.

[brodix]

Chronos,

Obviously there are no absolute reference frames. That is why I keep making the point that time is not a dimension, but the measure of the relationship between two frames.
As such it is simply a method of measuring a particular aspect of motion, just as temperature is.

[Antonio Lao]

As such it is simply a method of measuring a particular aspect of motion, just as temperature is.
Temperature, I think, is the value of a scalar field (no directional property) at a particular point of the field. Charge is the value of a vector field (possesses directional property) at a point. Mass is a value of a scalar field, called the Higgs field. If time is the value of a field, it must be a vector field because of its motion.

[brodix]

Antonio,

Temperature, I think, is the value of a scalar field (no directional property) at a particular point of the field. Charge is the value of a vector field (possesses directional property) at a point. Mass is a value of a scalar field, called the Higgs field. If time is the value of a field, it must be a vector field because of its motion.

Thank you! Someone willing to consider it as a logical proposition.

Consider that charge is a vector field, yet mass is not. This is because the charge contained within mass exists in equilibrium. There are generally equal amounts of positive and negative charge. So, in this example, a vector field is a component of a scalar field.

Time and temperature are the same. Temperature consists of a lot of atoms moving about, but because any directional motion is cancelled out by the general flux, what is being measured is the energy being generated. Time, as the measure of direction, is the specific pushing against context.

Now on the next level, this temperature represents energy that is being radiated and as such is another form of direction, but even this exists in context, as the amount of energy remains the same, so other fields are absorbing what has been radiated. This ties back into my point that units of time go from beginning to end, while the process of time goes on to the next, shedding the old.

Consider that economic statistics, such as GDP, or employment reports, are scalar readings of the energy being generated as individuals move along the paths of their lives, pushing the larger society toward both greater complexity and confusion...building up and breaking down.

regards,

brodix

[Antonio Lao]

Consider that economic statistics, such as GDP, or employment reports, are scalar readings of the energy being generated as individuals move along the paths of their lives, pushing the larger society toward both greater complexity and confusion...building up and breaking down.
Definitely, you have a wider conception of time and space. In my case, I am only limiting my understanding to local infinitesimal region of spacetime, when and where the directional property comes into existence and just as quickly ceases its existence. The concept of energy is free of any directional property. It's more like chaos (random process). But still, I believe that order can emerge from chaos. But how long this process takes is another story.

[brodix]

Antonio,

when and where the directional property comes into existence and just as quickly ceases its existence. The concept of energy is free of any directional property. It's more like chaos (random process). But still, I believe that order can emerge from chaos. But how long this process takes is another story.

Something to consider is Complexity Theory. It examines and contextualizes the top down direction of order and the bottom up processes of growth and how they compliment each other. Order defines energy/chaos and the energy/chaos motivates order. This relationship is actually what we think of as time, in that which we think of as past is what has been ordered and the future is the energy that will determine what survives and what vanishes. The present is the complex phase transition.
I first studied Complexity Theory as I was developing this understanding of how time has two directions and they are different expositions of the same process. The direction of the unit, that goes from beginning to end is that of order defining energy and when it reaches the stage of maximum definition, it amounts to a closed set and is subject to entropy/diminishing returns. Meanwhile the energy it has been shedding, radiates out and goes on to other structures that are still absorbing energy, thus the process is continually going on to other units of time. The relationship I'm developing here is that the unit of time is the material entity, as it forms out of interstellar gases and radiation, coalesces into ever more dense matter and as this gravitational process continues, starts radiating out more and more energy, until it grows big enough to ignite as a star and radiates out more energy then it is absorbing. There are levels of this, all the way up to galaxy cores. The energy radiates out till it has cooled to the point of condensing back out as hydrogen and other basic forms of mass. So what we have is a convective cycle of collapsing mass and expanding energy.

[Antonio Lao]

I first studied Complexity Theory as I was developing this understanding of how time has two directions and they are different expositions of the same process.
In the early 90's, i was actively investigating theory of complexity as endorsed by the Santa Fe Institute of which Murray Gell-Mann was a member and maybe he still is. I lose touch with the activities of this institute for a while. I wonder what are their latest findings on the science complexity?

[brodix]

Antonio,

It had originally grown out of seminars put together by John Reed, at the time president of Citicorp(now temporary head of the NYstock exchange) in trying to understand the economic forces which caused his bank to loose so much money in South America. As such, it has always had a very strong business focus and was much of the basis for the new paradigm of horizonal management that swept the economy in the 90's. Other then that, most of what was coming out was alot of dense studies of the economy and other areas, which were high on details, but didn't add all that much in insight.

[Tom McCurdy]

What if there are additionaled curled dimensions of time?

[Antonio Lao]

...in trying to understand the economic forces...
quoting from page 38 of M. Mitchell Waldrop's book Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of order and Chaos, of Brian Arthur's manifesto for a whole new kind of economics, that "It was a vision much like that of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who observed that you can never step into the same river twice. In Arthur's new economics, the economic world would be part of the human world. It would always be the same, but it would never be the same. It would be fluid, ever-changing, and alive."

[Antonio Lao]

What if there are additionaled curled dimensions of time?
Do you think that when the time dimension is curled up, its directional property vanishes? In other words, time stands still. It has no motion not even constant motion of any kind.

[brodix]

Antonio,

Of the various books I read on the subject, Waldrop's was the best written and most insightful of the basic issues.
Arthur's insight was that the classic top down economic ordering was politically convenient, but to the extent it stifled bottom up growth in favor of contol, was economically destructive.

I've had two copies of that book and gave them both away. That's the way it is. I only have the books I didn't think enough of to give away.

Tom,

Can you explain that?

[Antonio Lao]

Tom,

I invited Waldrop to give a short talk about the science of complexity at the think tank company I used to work at Crystal City in Arlington, VA, close to the Pentagon, and he accepted. Twenty or more people (including military officers) attended but I don't know how many have benefited from his talk. I for one still trying to find the math aspect of complexity. Can the whole theory of complexity be formulated into math equations? What would be the variables? Could time be an indispensable variable?

[brodix]

Antonio,

What is math? It is a process of ordering. Think of how you are trying to use it. To create a formula to explain a process that is inherently not reducible. Thus the best we can do are statistics. Consider your audience and their needs. Consider the situation the military finds itself in today. They are not independent operators, but are responsible for maintaining civil order in the most basic fashion.
Order is the concrete, growth is the grass pushing up through it.
I don't know whether you've followed my argument, so I'll review it;
Think of a factory; The product goes from initiation to completion, but the production line points in the other direction. Its future is in the start and the finished product is past.
The unit of time, a day, or the life of an object, goes from beginning to end, birth to death but the process is going on to the next unit, just as the species goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

Further expositions are scattered about the discussion.
This model is basic to reality. Consider; The Republic is an political unit; Top down order. Democracy is a political process; Bottom up...process.
Are those officers interested in defending the entity, or dealing with process?
The problem for that perspective is that the unit ceases to grow when it stops absorbing fresh energy and becomes a closed set, subject to entropy. Then it relies on its shell to maintain integrity for as long as possible. That is why the old America grew, whatever its mistakes, while the post 9/11 America has started to shrink.
The process has no defenders, only the unit and those seeking to replace it with the next unit that fight. Those who are basic to the process power through whatever form is taken. Those who turn the other cheek.
Jesus' symbol wasn't the cross, but the fish. That is because he lived at the dawn of the age of Pisces. As we live at the dawn of the age of Aquarius. Units of time in the process. The cross is the symbol of the institution which grew up in his shadow. A unit.


Truth is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers seek truths. Priests and politicians provide answers. That's why there are more priests and politicians then philosophers.

[Antonio Lao]

Truth is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers seek truths. Priests and politicians provide answers. That's why there are more priests and politicians then philosophers.
How about scientists? Or physicists in particular? They are also seeking the truth. The answers the politicians and priests provided are in the forms of promises while the physicists' answers are real results from experiments (these results led to the advancement of technologies). But i still need to see a physical equation that does not have time as an independent variable. My hunch is that square of energy can be formulated without time as a variable.

[brodix]

Antonio,

Anything you measure is going to have time as a variable, just as it will have temperature...except for....0...but then you have quantum fluctuation...matter/anti-matter...

Priests and politicians provide answers as real as the questions. It is just that scientists have more precise questions.

[Antonio Lao]

just as it will have temperature...except for....0
Learning from thermodynamics, temperature is just a measure of an average kinetic energy of particles in an isolated system (no transfer of mass or energy, in or out).
Still this isolated system can have local changes of its functions of state. But time is not explicitly a variable of the energy function. In fact, the energy function is independent of time hence the law of energy conservation as an invariance or time symmetry according to Noether's theorem.

[Antonio Lao]

From Maxwell's relations, temperature (T) can be explicitly defined as the partial derivative of energy (E) with respect to entropy (S) at constant volume (V).

T = \left( \frac{\partial E}{\partial S} \right)_V

[brodix]

Antonio,

I didn't say time is a measure of energy, a clock and the rotation of the earth can record the same time, but one entails more energy.

It is a measure of the rate of motion of two frames relative to each other.

At zero, you have no energy and no motion.

The question is whether there can be a situation in which time isn't a factor.

If you were to have only one frame, there wouldn't be any way to measure time, but then there would be no way to define the frame either. It could be infinite or imaginary. So it wouldn't have any parameters and there would be no way to define it as one. It would effectively be absolute and thus zero.

The reason time has two directions, as both frames must be moving, like the product and the production line, is conservation of energy; "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

[Antonio Lao]

brodix,

At temperature of absolute zero, there still exists zero-point energy. Motion is then localized and ruled by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Only one direction of time is defined. I agree with you that time has two distinct (quantized) directions. But in order to incorporate this other direction, we must take the square of energy. And the double integral of the square of energy with respect to two time's directions gives a double actions integral.

A^2 = \int \int E^2 dt dt

This, by coincidence, is just the square of Planck's constant, h.

[brodix]

Antonio,

If it isn't evident by now, I'll point out that I'm not a mathematician, but am just trying to comprehend reality. That said, personally I'd have ask what isn't zero point energy, in that everything is supposedly matter and anti-matter. Which returns me to the point; Zero is zero. Yes, it is nothing, but nothing as a state of equilibrium, thus which contains all of reality. The absolute as infinite.

I do realize measuring time requires an energy component, but in terms of relativity. If you change one field, without changing the other, the measure of time is changed.

I have been occasionally asked if I could put the concept of time having two directions into an equation. Do you have any ideas?

[Antonio Lao]

brodix,

For two directions of time, the double actions is given by the previous integral equation.
For three directions of time, the triple actions is given by the following:

A^3=\int\int\int E^3 dtdtdt \geq h^3

For n directions of time, the n actions is given by

A^{n}=\int_1 ... \int_{n} E^{n} dt_1 ...dt_{n} \geq h^{n}

[Antonio Lao]

Furthermore, the exponent of the action can indicate whether the action is the configuration of matter (fermions) or energy (bosons). Odd exponent is for fermions, matter-particles; even exponent is for bosons force-particles, energy waves and radiations.

[LeBrok]

We have an empty space (no reference points). In this space we have to clocks side by side at rest to each other. Now one clock accelerates from the other. How will they show time relatively to each other. Is one ticking faster than the other or are they ticking the same as they move away from each other with same velocity, as relativity dictates?
Well, I’m a bit lost here.

PS. Great discussion on this board. Time/space a very intriguing subject. Hopefully somebody is going to figure it out before my time runs out, hehe.

[brodix]

Antonio,

My brain just doesn't think in equations, just like it can't think in languages other then english. And the visual. And occasionally the emotional.

LeBrok,

The question is whether there is any other frame of reference. As you propose that there isn't, then they tick at the same rate. The situation is that the presumption exists of an absolute framework, by which the reality of both clocks can be determined, but the absolute isn't a framework, it is an equilibrium and with only two points of reference, then the equilibrium is between those two points. If there are more reference points, then the larger frame starts to develop, but it is only an absolute as a whole. This means that if you isolate any point, then the rest of the frame is relative to that point. In other words, like your two clocks, if you move one, it is only in relation to the other. So in this sense, one point is one clock and everything else is the other clock. So there is no absolute frame in which motion occurs, because any motion affects this frame.

[LeBrok]

Thanks brodix for responding.
I did some thinking about what you said about employing an idea of the frame for these two clocks situation. Then I run into problems with that. One is that if just only one of them were accelerating they both would approach the speed of light at the same time. If one of them gets to the speed of light (to visualize the extreme situation) they would both stop ticking at exactly same time? Other problem comes from the first one. To keep this synchronized time they have to communicate with each other. One knows what the other is doing and they do that much faster that the speed of light.
I just fought of the third problem. If you accelerate each of them in opposite direction to 51% of speed of light each, which is physically possible, in this frame of two clocks they would fly faster than the speed of light.

On the other hand if I go with the notion that one clock will tick faster than the other in this two clocks scenario, then I come to the conclusion that the space itself must be the reference for the clocks. And this goes against SR theory.
Hmmm
I’m stuck again.

[brodix]

LeBrok,

The problem is that all of space has matter and energy, so it does effectively form something close to an absolute frame of reference, unless of course you believe in the Big Bang theory, but we have currently found mature galaxies and enormous galaxy structures at the very edge of the visible universe, which is the point I'd assumed that the scientific establishment would have to start questioning it, but the penchant for institutional kool-aid is strong.
The reason time slows at the speed of light is because complex atomic structure has electrons flying around the nucleus of atoms at close to the speed of light, so you cannot accelerate matter past the point where internal and external speeds exceed the speed of light, so that the faster an object moves, the slower itss internal processes function. The reality is that if you did accelerate it to the speed of light, it would be light and have no moving internal structure. As it is, light leaves light sources in opposite directions at the cummulative speed of, obviously, double the speed of light.

[Epsilon Pi]

Mr Mattson and everyone interested,

As you made so serious claims in this post, I am presenting here the second paper of four:

The Schrodinger's wave equation and the rationalization of duality.

http://www.geocities.com/paterninaedgar/QM.pdf

In this paper the SWE is presented not as a postulate but under the concept of the basic unit system.

Abstract. In this second paper of four the Schrodinger's wave equation is presented under the concept of the basic unit system. Again it is too, a result and a promise, because of those dialogues in Physics Forum in its TD sub forum. By using complex numbers we find that the duality of time and space cannot be dropped out just by taking the square of a complex equation as in this way we drop out not just one part of that complex equation but, we do not rationalize duality of time and space, of wave-particle, anymore.
Comments: equations included.

There you will find why I do not consider the Klein and Gordon's equation a consistent solution to the problem of duality of time and space, wave-particle.

In my next paper I will present a non relativistic point of view of the Lorentz Transformation Group by using the same basic unit system concept.

My best regards
EP


But you have to make good philosophy to make good science. That means you have to provide arguments and evidence for your position, which you have consistently failed to do.
Are you saying that it is a mistake not to use an "included middle" in our logic?



Wrong. It is possible to start from the Lorentz transformation and recover Einstein's 2 postulates from them. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformations explicitly encode the coupling of space and time. In fact, it is the interdependence of spatial and temporal parameters in the Lorentz transformation that physicists define as the coupling of space and time. As I said before, if you change the LT in such a way that space and time are decoupled, then it won't be the LT anymore.

But since you won't even look at the Lorentz transformations, it is hopeless to try to convince you on this. All I can do is correct you.



Duality between which two concepts, exactly?



Again, what is "the third"?



Since you have not said what those two orders of reality are, or how the Euler relation can be used to separate them, this makes absolutely no sense.



So that means you are not going to present it???

This is a cheap cop-out that is typical of crackpots who cannot defend their position.



It seems clear that you are saying that "the third" is "the included middle", but without your explicitly saying so I am not going to assume it. I will point out, however, that using an included middle reasoning system is hopeless because if the compound statement (P and ~P) is true, then it is possible to prove any statement "true", whether it is true or not.

Surely it should not be thought that this is good philosophy.



The Euler relation does not "represent the covariant laws of nature". Tensor equations do that.



You just don't get it. "We" don't couple time to space for any applications! Space and time are coupled, and "we" are powerless to do anything about it. The coupling of space and time as exhibited explicitly in the Lorentz transformations is a derived result of the 2 postulates of relativity, which are also features of our universe. And there is no analog between the coupling of time and space in SR and the unertainty principle in QM. Both are derived independently of the other, and the two do not have any formal similarity.



Of course it does. In this thread, all you have done is deny that time and space are coupled because it seems wrong to you. You don't have a single argument, or a single piece of experimental evidence to support your position. If there were ever a more clear cut instance of someone rejecting a scientific theory because it does not sit well with his philosophical taste, then I have not seen it.



This is just another cheap cop-out. You have not presented a "different way to cope reality", so how could I be expected to comment on it?

In any case, I would say that the mathematical description of the universe is not subject to such a rash rewriting as you would have us do. You are simply wrong to think that both a statement and its negation can both be descriptive of our universe.

I'll note here that you have referred to complementarity, and I suspect that this is a veiled reference to quantum logic. If so, then note that that will not rescue your position against the excluded middle (if that is indeed your position) because multiple-valued logics (such as those that can accomodate complementarity) can still have an excluded middle.




You never presented an argument. All you said was that it is a mistake not to use "the third". You did not say why, nor did you even say what "the third" is.



Yes. Einstein opened his 1905 paper by noting the experimental failure of Galilean relativity as applied to Maxwell's equations.

See On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf).



You thought wrong. Einstein derived the LT from 2 postulates: one physical, one mathematical. There's no metaphysics involved here.



They are. But the postulates also permit such validation.

See The Experimental Basis for Special Relativity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html).



Wrong. As previously noted, time and space are manifestly linked via the Lorentz transformation. This is the definition of the concept of the coupling of time and space.



You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. The coupling of time and space as in the Lorentz transformation fits perfectly well with the uncertainty principle. I have repeatedly referred you to Klein-Gordon and to Dirac. But I'm convinced that you haven't investigated it, so this is hopeless.



You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.



I wish I could say the same. You did exaclty what I asked you not to do: present unsubstantiated opinions with no proof or evidence.



You can attach a file to a post, or you can simply write it in a post.

[modmans2ndcoming]

For a week I'm thinking about what's time. I have an idea that looks good to me so I decided to share with ppl. looking for the answer :confused: . What do you think? :rolleyes: Here it goes. (can't explain it better, english is my second language)


Imagine there is no time… It’s tough if not impossible. At least you could imagine the room or other place without the movement.

at its simplest term, time is nothing more than the relation of two separate events. if there was no relation between events, then one could not reliably predict what will be next and that will make life impossible since life is based on predictable events.

[Antonio Lao]

My brain just doesn't think in equations, just like it can't think in languages other then english. And the visual. And occasionally the emotional.
The integral symbol \int over time means that time can be added. 1 second + 1 second = 2 seconds. The unit of the time's quantum is 1. But if the time's quantum is 0, adding a bunch of quanta of "zero," the sum is still "zero." Hence by zero quantum of time, time does not exist. But if the time quantum is very small such as Planck time, then adding a lot of them gives a finite value of time. This logically seems to indicate that time zero does not exist. If time zero does not exist then there must be some kind of local infinitesimal motion for the existence of Planck time of 10^{-43} sec.

Note: Temperatures (density and maybe mass) cannot be added since they are point values of a scalar field. But the point values of a vector field can be added together.

[Antonio Lao]

So if in equations we encounter zero time, this really means that there must be two directions of time such that the time difference between these two directions is zero iff the time's quanta are exactly the same ( 1 - 1 = 0) or ( 0 - 0 = 0).

[LeBrok]

modmans2ndcoming

I think I know what you meant. The same you can say about space. You need relations to figure out if something is moving in space. You need relations to say how something is moving through the time line. But it does not answer the question about the nature of time. Is the time a spatial dimension or is the time only the way we measure movement of matter and energy through space.

In my first post, you referring to, I also wrote this where I postulated that the time is nothing more than movement through space.

"Consider other possibility. Let’s take for example a motionless world were the Time the 4th dimension does not exist. Visualize handful of small particles (try to imagine more then one, because if there is only one you will not know if it’s moving, relativity principle, remember?). They are not moving, they are in same distances to each other – no time no movement.
Now, what would it take to change the quantum state of theirs? To move the quantum distance, the smallest distance available in space, to make a little “jump” to other quantum state/space. Remember, in quantum world there is nothing in between the quantum states/space. You travel the quantum distance immediately. You cannot measure the time it took the particle to travel the quantum distance because there is no small enough quantum of time to measure it. Other words, the quantum “jump” is instantaneous and we don’t need time to pass to make this quantum move. You are going to see those little particles jumping from one quantum place to the other in space just because the movement in this space is allowed and not because the clock is ticking by." end od quote

As I still claim that I noticed that influencing or interacting one particle with neighbor particle needs time. It takes time to communicate even with speed of light. Maybe this is where the speed of light is coming from – from the delay it takes for the smallest particles/strings to send information from one to the other. Why it needs time to communicate for them I don’t know, but it does. After my rethinking of the problem of time I am leaning towards description of time as the 4th dimension.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Learning from thermodynamics, temperature is just a measure of an average kinetic energy of particles in an isolated system (no transfer of mass or energy, in or out).
Still this isolated system can have local changes of its functions of state. But time is not explicitly a variable of the energy function. In fact, the energy function is independent of time hence the law of energy conservation as an invariance or time symmetry according to Noether's theorem.

I'm not clear here , are You saying that there is a backward path thru time? Not just a historical record that describes a process but that is renormalizable thru T- but an accessible pathway?

The tachyon is a discarded relic of 50's SF.

Noether's Theorem describes an math function but is also fatally flawed as it utilized Lagrangian's but not Hamiltonian as a description so any real world application seems slippery at best. I'm not a mathematician. Can you clarify?

[brodix]

Antonio,
So if in equations we encounter zero time, this really means that there must be two directions of time such that the time difference between these two directions is zero iff the time's quanta are exactly the same ( 1 - 1 = 0) or ( 0 - 0 = 0).

Yes. This is why all of reality exists in what is considered a point in time.

Till,

It is not that there is "a backward path through time", but that the path of time is a subjective construct in the first place that is neutralized by its relative context. To the extent the individual travels down its path, the path is moving the other direction. They are simply two frames of reference.

[musky_ox]

What if a giant elephant popped out of space randomly in the atmosphere above my house and it got trampled? (please do not try to say this has nothing to support it, doesnt random chance/evolution creation?)

[Doctordick]

Well, ordinary bits have been an epiphany to some - see "A New Kind of Science". I don't buy it, basically because I know that arithmetic is Goedel incomplete and geometry isn't. Since I think it's a requirement for a TOE to be complete in that sense, I stick with real and complex variables.Ok, one is fine the other isn't (I don't exactly find your arguments rational but, as this thread is not locked, I presume the "mentors" find your arguments rational. What I would like to know is exactly what the difference is between "complex" numbers and pairs of real numbers might be. Is it just a convenience of representation or is there some fundamental difference which still eludes me.

Have fun -- Dick

[TillEulenspiegel]

Antonio,


Yes. This is why all of reality exists in what is considered a point in time.

Till,

It is not that there is "a backward path through time", but that the path of time is a subjective construct in the first place that is neutralized by its relative context. To the extent the individual travels down its path, the path is moving the other direction. They are simply two frames of reference.

Well the gist of what I seemed to hear was that the was a bi-directional pathway , function , whateverer You want that would be accessible thru other means then an mathematical function of a description of process to describe a phenomena, AFAIK that is not and cannot be the case.
As a matter of fact the Prima Facia act of correspondence proves the threads main idea moot.

Perhaps I read it wrong.

P.S, I wouldn't say neutralized , rather realized,

[Tigron-X]

Time is a frame of mind and only relevant within an applicagble given position in infinity to help give awareness to one by the use of perception, and perception is a calculation of assigned values. Values assigned to events, therefore time is a measurement of given events within specific dimensions on a whole or dimensions limited by one. Whether you personify that "one" or take it numerically is up to you, however they're the samething, yet one is always divided or multiplied by infinity ten different ways to change space to a relative one as zero does not exist. And since zero does not exist in space as a whole because everything is an event even though a specific event may appear to be absent at one point, it is present in another form until that specific event accumulates to the desired value which we use time to measure by evaluating patterns of mathamatics within perceived planes formed by the strongest acting dimension of a specific event relative to one.

[Chronos]

Hmmm. I am therefore I am. I wonder why no one thought of that before. Self identities lead to illogical conclusions.

[Antonio Lao]

In physics, the inverse of time is defined as the frequency of a periodic function. But as the definition implies, neither time or frequency can have values of zero or infinity.
Furthermore the transform of the action from a time domain to a frequency domain gives

E^{n} = \int_1 ...\int_{n}A^{n}d\nu_1 ...d\nu_{n}

for n=1

E = h\nu

[Epsilon Pi]

Well, the difference is sort of philosophical one if you want, but if we start with a reality "out there", with a radical duality, i.e., time and space, wave-particle, energy-matter, ect... don't we need a proper symbolism to represent it? We certainly cannot do it with "a pairs of real numbers"... as how can you differentiate one from another?
All you have then in your representation is "symmetry", or bilateral symmetry as Hermann Weyl put it, and for sure you will then need all kinds of "patches" to introduce the asymmetric behavior of reality "out there"...but of course you have all the right to deny that reality "out there", and then you will not recognize the need to include the third in your representations.
To include the third as a matter of fact implies complex numbers; if we take the symbol, i= square root of minus one, as a symbol for differentiating at the least two different kinds of parities, even and odd, as is expressed in Euler relation

i(Theta)
e = Cosine(Theta) +i Sine(Theta)

being odd and even another form of that duality, in the reality "out there".

On the other hand I am quite aware that for mere convenience they have borrowed, both the magnitude and the angle of a complex number, trying to drop out its complex nature and reducing it to a pair of real numbers. But is this not a "patching" procedure? Why must we deny the complex nature of reality "out there"? Is this not ontological idealism in the same mansion of science?

My best regards
EP

What I would like to know is exactly what the difference is between "complex" numbers and pairs of real numbers might be. Is it just a convenience of representation or is there some fundamental difference which still eludes me.

Have fun -- Dick

[TillEulenspiegel]

In physics, the inverse of time is defined as the frequency of a periodic function. But as the definition implies, neither time or frequency can have values of zero or infinity.
Furthermore the transform of the action from a time domain to a frequency domain gives

E^{n} = \int_1 ...\int_{n}A^{n}d\nu_1 ...d\nu_{n}

for n=1

E = h\nu
Absolutely Antonio, the concept of periodicity is inherently embedded in t. We could view t as a scaler background onto which we place specific events, but even then we are subject to the real world plasticity of t itself as Einstein proposed and slow ( relatively speaking :) ) moving airplanes with atomic clocks have proven, which means that our grid can expand and contract . So it is not an artifact of maths nor is it static. It must be accounted for in all integrations ( see my sig line ) as Euclid described in ~300 B.C. sum over time, Newton was a thief.

As some others have mentioned there is a "cognitive" problem with the idea of trying to define Time itself. I rather see it as an epistemological breakdown, but if we treat it like so many other phenomenon where the process is hidden but the outcome is predictable I.E "Wave function collapse" in QM , then we can still define the reality while not knowing the workings, look at any normal Human glancing at their watch.

Dr. Einstein did us an enormous favor when he said the word "Spacetime".

[brodix]

Till,

P.S, I wouldn't say neutralized , rather realized,

The thread isn't mine. I'm not arguing that time doesn't exist, but that it isn't a dimension, because this is based on the assumption that the reference frame is at rest, so that the motion of the point of reference requires an additional dimension to define it. I'm just making the point that time is an aspect of motion. While energy can be neither created or destroyed, the information it is forming is constantly changing. The energy is the objective. The information is the subjective. Time is subjective. Space on the other hand isn't a three dimensional reference frame, but equilibrium. The absolute zero around which matter and anti-matter fluctuate. As recent studies have shown, the sum of all expansion and gravitational contraction balances out, so that space is ultimately flat.

[Antonio Lao]

I'm not arguing that time doesn't exist, but that it isn't a dimension
Quoting from Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins' What is Mathematics? page 248:
"The concept of dimension presents no great difficulty so long as one deals only with simple geometric figures such as points, lines, triangles, and polyhedra. A single point or any finite set of points has dimension zero, a line segment is one-dimensional, and the surface of a triangle or of a sphere two-dimensional. But when one attempts to extend this concept to more general point sets, the need for a precise definition arises."

Dimension as a mathematical concept still needs a final precise definition. Most often it is defined in the context of its usage to be synonymous with direction and coordinate and frame of reference and, I think, even the concept of a degree of freedom.

[sol2]

Absolutely Antonio, the concept of periodicity is inherently embedded in t. We could view t as a scaler background onto which we place specific events, but even then we are subject to the real world plasticity of t itself as Einstein proposed and slow ( relatively speaking :) )

Dr. Einstein did us an enormous favor when he said the word "Spacetime".

I liked your explanation

If Spacetime then becomes dynamical then how would we comprehend these features of curvature?

To understand the scalar product in terms of tension how would you expect this tension to represent energy considerations? Sean Carroll has a good explanation here.

There is still a lot we don't know. For example, are the predictions of GR for gravitational lensing and dynamical measures of mass consistent with each other? Are there deviations at very strong curvatures, or for that matter very weak curvatures? Are there deviations at very small distances that may be probed in the laboratory? (Current best limits go down to about one tenth of a millimeter.) Are there long-range but subtle effects that still may show up in the Solar System?

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspo...relativity.html

This is a realization for me, that the energy can move into these extra dimensions. Now if time becomes applicable, then the dimensions become significant?

I am giving you some figures (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@143.ZrV7cTM4HCf.21@.1ddf4a5f/125) to look at for consideration. Hopefully Antonio will look as well.

If you go through the links after, you will understand the developement of this distance measure(dimension), and hopefully a general concept that was developing in my mind.

For those interested here are some Quantum Gravity Links (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@128.dsWncyyCHnu.24@.1de0f3cf) for consideration

Thanks

[PRyckman]

D=(c-v)t note that velocity is directional, and this represents space in the line ahead of the path

[Antonio Lao]

D=(c-v)t
Is this another formulation for the speed of light c?
c = \frac{D}{t} + v
For constant c, v tends to c as D tends to zero or t tends to infinity.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Sol2,
I'm not quite sure where we're headed here, but the main proponents of extra dimensions tend to favor compacitifacation ( ala Kaluza - Klein ) and embrace string theory where these quantities do have an pronounced effect at Newtonian and relativistic levels while all the time being by their very definition unable to be examined because they reside at at lesser then the Planck length. Magic, Science or the Emperor's new clothes? All the Maths seem to work correctly.

I agree with your assessment that T is not a dimension as we think of in the traditional sense.

going sideways.

I have kicked around both an idea of inherent charge on the universe and an extra macro dimension ( which engenders nothing but derision) The latter is the model most simple and intrinsically "Beautiful" , the former was an old idea and my interest was reignited when a correspondent mentioned that he had similar leanings. The problem with the first is that the G at square of the difference becomes the cube of the distance. That is the main critique. My objection is that we discard Newton at Q and cosmological scales, why does he reinsert himself without err in this instance. The lemma is a confrontation with hundreds of years of physics. Not an easy go. The former is elegant but requires "now" a compensation for the varying Hubble expansion.

What we are discussing here is OOT , but for 4000 Yrs. the Hindu's talk about the river of time, for ~<100 Yrs. Einstein's t, for less then~ 30 Feynman's arrow of time and Hawking's light cone. Parsing your link You seem like many ( myself included) to want find a concrete background which Einstein "disproved". Well the punch line is that Einstein's "Biggest mistake in my life" -Lambda, MMX's Aether, dark energy, may after all be correct.( which funny enough doesn't appear to be static!)

My basic belief is that there is a quasi-static background, which is neither accessible or usable to quantify the dynamical properties or our universe .One may tout brane or string theory or the many universes hypothesis but we have yet to approach accommodation of unity. The whole impact of Einstein on me has been not the maths ( which basically are unsolvable ATT ) but his words about the inherent beauty of truth.

John Baez gave a talk at GR-17 regarding QLG and spin foams, there's an adjunct theory/book by Ambjorn on simplicial gravity called "Quantum Geometry" I have not read the text, but the intersection of his view and Baez's appearers to be interesting.

Joao Magueijo at Imperial Collage has a view of VSL , which at origionally was applicable at the first inflationary stage after the BB, but has migrated to "special zones" where it remains a dynamical metric ...


My point being that even the most sacrosanct of cosmological constants such as G,t and dare I say it, c are questionable.
I'm sure Antonio may take exception at my last remark .

The more we learn , the less we know.

[PRyckman]

Man no wonder I was confused about a t.o.e
I always thought c=Dt,
Wait a minute, light is a constant, it will always be the same speed and return the same time for the same distance. Therefor either of those equations can be used to measure light.

The second equation is a new equation for distance, rather than d=vt
it is d=(c-v)t

The reason no one has noticed this when driving 80 miles an hour down the high way is because your only doing 33.3 meters per second which would mean your driving 99.99993 give or take percent of that 80 miles in an hour.

Please note that in telling me your calculation for light, you proved mine correct
So you agreed that distance is not represented by D=vt
instead it is D=(c-v)t

[PRyckman]

But the speed of light is a velocity in itself, also no matter who measures it, it is the same speed relative to themselves.

Therefor c can also equal dt
c=Dt
c=D/t+v
We know light behaves as a particle and a wave depending how we look at it, well there now you have it in mathmatics.

Please note that c D and t are all made relative by v if the object has mass
but if the object has no mass, there is no such thing as v and since c is a constant it does not require an equation, only a measurement.
It just so happens that you can measure it with an equation, if you tie it into time and distance, which is what your doing by measuring it.

But if you just let it be and don't measure it, it is only
c=c

[TillEulenspiegel]

PR please excuse me if I seem muddled as it is 4:15 AM my time after pub crawling.
Your confusing light with particulate matter .. a photon has no mass and exists theoretically in all places at the same time. The constant c is only in regards to a finite limit of v in our universe for both light and particles regardless of frame of reference. Thus spoke Albert.

[Antonio Lao]

If we ignore directional property and assuming the EM force is zero and only absolute values then the speed can be the ratio of the magnitude of the electric field over the magnetic field.

v=\frac{E}{B}

the question is when does v=c for what values of E and B? Where c is approximately 300,000 km/s.

Note that c is defined in the theory of the electromagnetic field as given by

c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0\mu_0}}

the inverse square root of the product of permittivity and permeability of free space.

c is also defined as the ratio of angular frequency over the wave number

c=\frac{\omega}{\kappa}

[TillEulenspiegel]

If we ignore directional property and assuming the EM force is zero and only absolute values then the speed can be the ratio of the magnitude of the electric field over the magnetic field.

v=\frac{E}{B}

the question is when does v=c for what values of E and B? Where c is approximately 300,000 km/s.

As you stated before the cost of e to accelerate a mass to c is infinite.
Maxwell was not given enough credit as far as I'm concerned.

PR, when considering v in terms of mass, v may only approach c, the speed of a photon as described in STR is unique as it is a zero rest mass particle. That is why it may have v=c in relation to a photon. No mass however may reach c or exceed it.

[brodix]

Antonio,

Dimension as a mathematical concept still needs a final precise definition. Most often it is defined in the context of its usage to be synonymous with direction and coordinate and frame of reference and, I think, even the concept of a degree of freedom.

This is exactly why I am saying time is process, rather than dimension. In the proposed line from past to future, which exists only when we assume the frame of reference is at rest and only the point of reference is moving, we exist at a dimensionless point in the middle, called the present. Why is that? It is because the movement of all frames balance out and reality is only the energy that is constantly changing inFORMation. So in this dimension of subjective "direction and coordinate and frame of reference", there is no freedom from what is present.

[bayan]

personally I beleive that time is only made by humans to describe a thing (Change). if you guys belive in changing the coardinants of space, you would beleive that we can change the coarinants of time as well.

here is a point that i do not get. If change of time is possible it would mean that it can be done either - or +.

how can one mass exist at two places when in reallity it exists in a diffrent place?

How do we see? Do we not see due to the reflectiong of EMR? if the light has not bounced to something and reflected back how can we see that?

If there is an explenation please tell me. I might even change my mine

Cheers mates!

[Antonio Lao]

personally I beleive that time is only made by humans to describe a thing (Change). if you guys belive in changing the coardinants of space, you would beleive that we can change the coarinants of time as well.
This is done in the theories of relativity, special and general - the dynamics of spacetime structures.

here is a point that i do not get. If change of time is possible it would mean that it can be done either - or +.
This is the same as the attribute of directional properties.

how can one mass exist at two places when in reallity it exists in a diffrent place?
All electrons are identical. They have the same mass, charge, and two states of spin. So two electrons can be in the same place iff they have opposite spin - Pauli's exclusion principle. Three electrons will never be in the same place. But three quarks can be in the same place because there are three color charge R, G, and B in contrast to electric charge of (+) and (-).

How do we see? Do we not see due to the reflectiong of EMR? if the light has not bounced to something and reflected back how can we see that?
We see because energy and matter can interact. This is the science of quantum electrodynamics (QED) or quantum field theory (QFT).

[bayan]

Is it possible to travel back in time?


If you can bend space you will be able to strech time.


For you to slow time you need to reach fast speeds, when you reach C time stops for you only.

are these things right?

If time can be streched it surly will be able to be compressed! To slow time you need to reach C. To speed up the time you will have to move slower than still

[Epsilon Pi]

With mind everything is possible; in fact in the same way we can access the future, most probably we can access the past, but physically it is another thing.
Even if we start with the prevailing physics paradigm, where time is assimilated to a space dimension, there are impossible problems to overcome, as we reach the velocity of light, an infinite "mass", an infinite "energy", according to those formulas due to Einstein.
Is not a flaw supposition to think that time stops with the velocity of light? It is not that way in the reality "out there". But in sci-fi everything is possible.
Regards
EP


Is it possible to travel back in time?


If you can bend space you will be able to strech time.


For you to slow time you need to reach fast speeds, when you reach C time stops for you only.

are these things right?

If time can be streched it surly will be able to be compressed! To slow time you need to reach C. To speed up the time you will have to move slower than still

[Antonio Lao]

Is it possible to travel back in time? If you can bend space you will be able to strech time.
According to general relativity, the bending of space also bends time or the same as bending of a spacetime structure, the radius of curvature decreases. But the curvature is the inverse of the radius. For zero radius (zero size), the curvature is infinite. So a truly point object has infinite curvature but it also has no size, its ddimension is zero, a point. In cosmology, this point is the big bang singularity where the time is zero, the volume is zero, the energy density is infinite, the temperature is infinite. In order to travel thru a different direction of time, one must first pass thru the singularity.

[sol2]

According to general relativity, the bending of space also bends time or the same as bending of a spacetime structure, the radius of curvature decreases. But the curvature is the inverse of the radius. For zero radius (zero size), the curvature is infinite. So a truly point object has infinite curvature but it also has no size, its ddimension is zero, a point. In cosmology, this point is the big bang singularity where the time is zero, the volume is zero, the energy density is infinite, the temperature is infinite. In order to travel thru a different direction of time, one must first pass thru the singularity.

Well put Antonio :smile:

If we were to look at young's experment for a moment, and you knew that the photon could take many roads to the backdrop, can you imagine the many worlds that could have been travelled by this photon, if it travelled through dimensions?

So I would ask you then, if you seen this photon travel through a gravitonic field, how would you describe it's journey, mathematically? All the events have been detailled in your post, so maybe go from there?

[Antonio Lao]

sol2,

The photon has never moved? It just transferred its influence to the next closest photon so on and so forth.

[sol2]

sol2,

The photon has never moved? It just transferred its influence to the next closest photon so on and so forth.

Let's say the photon is held to a early cosmological event. What information has been revealled in the photon?

[Antonio Lao]

The information reveals by a photon is that it has chosen a specific direction of linear motion. But since the original photon making the choice remains the immovable prime mover, it just relays this choice to the next photon, then the next, ad infinitum. This information is encapsulated into a wave packet.

[sol2]

If you quantize the gravitational waves, this information would have been locked into a discripiton of the photons energy value?

So in looking back to the early universe, the gravitonic energy, has been released into the bulk, would have released definitive information about the structure of that event?

In the event of binary stars rotating, there is a predictive possibility discerned from the closeness of these two, so it is loosing energy and giving us information.

How would you assign such spectrums if you did not considered the amplitutde of the event?

Please any corrections

[JayseR]

Let us take into account that much of what we learn or info that we gather is not always right. It is believed that most discoveries are false under some circumstances. This where the Laws are seperated by the "concepts" or better known as "Theories" that we as people create. Considering we don't even know what protons, electrons, neutrons, etc look like, we coem up with theories and representations. If some of you think back to highschool, you can probably rmember learning about little balls bouncing aorund called atoms because of heat. Do you really think atoms are just primitive balls with neutrons, electrons, and protons that just randomly jump aroudn because of heat? This representation is more then likely completely false. Some of you may ask, "Well, why do they teach it to us then?" Basically for 2 simple reasons. 1) It works! and 2) Although it may be stupid, they leave it up to some of us to add opn to this, or correct this.; Teaching us soemthign that is totally and utterly wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught to us. Think of history, most of what we learn in history are just guesses people made looking at a couple spear heads. Yet we still learn it. Like the old saying goes, "If we are unable to learn about our past, we are doomed to repeat it..." Yet many believe that we have existed for millions of years, whcih doesn't explain why our technology is so primitive. If we have existed for so long, why has it taken us millions of years to get just where we are today? I also don't believe that we had evolved from monkies. That concept is completely to farfetched. But getting back on track here. If you think of it, time "literally" was created by man. It is basically a visual representation of the events that take place around us, and more in-definition, the expanding of the universe. But as we should know, there are two times, there is what we call "real time" and then there is "imaginary time". Real-time is what us people use here on as a representation of motion on earth and of earth revolving around the sun. You can put real-time on a horizontal line scale, where you have, place on the left side of the line, the past, in the middle, the present, and to the right, the future. But, then there's the vertical line in which was called "imaginary time." Imaginary time is what was there before what we say is called "the big bang theory", or the beginning of time. It's what causes the universe to keep expanding. Could of the Big Bang have happened without time. Time isn't just based on what happens, what happened, or what's going to happen. It's based on other factors such as speed, and even temperature. 0 kalven is at the point when tiem stops. As someone said earlier, we would all freeze to death. Technically, we would all be dead logn before it reached that temperature. But let's say that we could survive to the point of 0 kalven. Would we actually die? If time is frozen, hwo could we die. for die is literally an action that is provided by time, then it wouldn't be possible if there is no time. Or if were to halt, would it be the beginning of time? 10e-43 is the point in which time supposedly started, and it all started with a singularity in which carried all the laws of physics, all matter, etc, and on the event horizon of a black hole, it is the point in which there is no time. And taking into mind that black holes apparently also have a singularity. Would it not be the start of something new? I will talk about blackhole(s) in a later thread. But since time is a speed, obviously much faster then light, because if ligth were faster, light would just stop, or if it would even exist. If so, possibly jsut in one ball or sphere of light, which could not move in either directions because it could not move beyond time. Unless, it could move beyond time, would it not go into another time frame? Frames, we think of life and things around us in frames and cycles. Doesn;t it sound familiar? Possibly from a machien right in front of you or beside you. That's right, your computer. Most of it works in frames and cycles. Your fans, video card, etc. When you play a game, it's frames per second or (fps). Computers are made after how we see everything around us, only it is extended through imagination and creation and displayed through a screen. Now, all of our eyes can pick up movements at a certain rate, and the faster the rate, the harder it is for us to pick up, so whatever is moving becoem much smoother. Take 2 fps opposed to 100 fps. At 2 fps we can see every frame in the game that's happening. At 100 fps, the frames are moving to fast so as our eyes catches these frames, they collide together to form a smooth vision. Now say yuo have 0 fps. Nothign moves, yet when there is no movement in a game, it sin't running, therefore you end up with a balck screen, or the game crashes. It either freezes or crashes. Now let's refer this to reality, or what we "so call" ""reality"". If time were to stop, or as iw oudl call it, restart at 10e-43, would we be able to notice it if were were able to see faster then time? Or would we just see black? or as tiem stopped, reality crashes, and restarts? Or just collapses? Now if we were able to see faster then time, could we see into what's goign to happen (the future), or would it be just a stroke of black? Then you have to think of how we see now. We obviously see slower, so are we slightly behind time? maybe things are happening that we don;t know about, but it will eventually happen when we get there. What if we saw at the exact speed of time, would it just be frame by frame? Or black again, beacause it is faster then light. Or it must be faster then light. I ask question not only to you out there, but to myself because I am very skeptical about what i say. Much of it is most likely incorrect, in accurate and inprecise. We look at time as a significant variable, or as significant variables, but it's almost liek asking, what is the number "7"? Technically it is nothing. All it is, is a symbolic representation of numerous things. the number 7 in japanese looks much different. And we don;t even knwo if our math system is 100% correct. But I will touch base on that in a seperate thread. So how can we say is our representation of time right?How about we ask the real question... How is time wrong. We shoudl always look for errors within our work. Try to prove ourselves worng. Be skeptical. But most importantly, "think outside of the box!" For example, don't use what we ahve already learned and try to add on. Think of something entirely new, jsut as einstein did when he developed the "theory of releativity." He was standing next to water one day, when he saw waves in the water. Then hetought what it would be liek to ride waves of light. Thus the theory of relativity was born. He thought outside of the box in which came to be a revolutionary theory in our society. So jsut think outside the box and be skeptical of your work. I have much more to add, but it runs on into a whoel new subject that yet relates to this...

[Smurf]

Hello! And welcome to the Forum Jayser!!
Now, Please use Paragraphs in your next post.

-Ruler of the Universe,
Smurf

[Antonio Lao]

If you quantize the gravitational waves, this information would have been locked into a discripiton of the photons energy value?
Cosmologists get their information from photons. They are still hoping to get some information from gravitons. But the problem is nobody knows how to build a detector sensitive enough and capable of finding gravitons.

So in looking back to the early universe, the gravitonic energy, has been released into the bulk, would have released definitive information about the structure of that event?
Until we detected gravitons, we probably can never "see" the interior of a black hole or for that matter the big bang singularity at time zero. But can gravitons escape the pull of the black hole or singularity?

In the event of binary stars rotating, there is a predictive possibility discerned from the closeness of these two, so it is loosing energy and giving us information.
The binary companion with mass greater than the Chandrasekhar limit is detected to be pulling matter from the other and showing opposite jets of intense magnetic fields at right angle to the accretion disc. This seems to indicate that intense magnetic field is related to high mass density.

[sol2]

Until we detected gravitons, we probably can never "see" the interior of a black hole or for that matter the big bang singularity at time zero. But can gravitons escape the pull of the black hole or singularity?

See that last sentence is sure a tricky one :smile:

If I was to put my ole trusty glasses on, how would I see gravitonic gatherings?



The binary companion with mass greater than the Chandrasekhar limit is detected to be pulling matter from the other and showing opposite jets of intense magnetic fields at right angle to the accretion disc. This seems to indicate that intense magnetic field is related to high mass density.

The oscillatory effect is what is releasing this information? If this is a energy determination, then how would it be loosing the distance in between and become detectable?

[Antonio Lao]

Somehow gravitons are known to interact with themselves and it can be very difficult for a few gravitons to escape the the influence of so many other gravitons unless of course if the few are more energetic.

Even harmonic oscillators have a distance in term of wavelength. Can this wavelength be the Planck length?

[sol2]

Somehow gravitons are known to interact with themselves and it can be very difficult for a few gravitons to escape the the influence of so many other gravitons unless of course if the few are more energetic.


Even harmonic oscillators have a distance in term of wavelength. Can this wavelength be the Planck length?

What would gamma ray detection tell us about the early universe? Photon intersection? How about graviton intersection? Bold highlighted?

Thanks Antonio for your time. I will no longer be posting in this particular section

[Antonio Lao]

I am very skeptical about what i say. Much of it is most likely incorrect, in accurate and inprecise.

You possess a scientific mind. But in order to achieve precision, you need to formulate your thoughts using mathematical language on fundamental physical quantities like space, time, force, energy, charge, mass and motion.

The main concept of this thread is "time." So a few precisely cutting questions are

1. Does time have a direction? 2. Does the motion of time varies? 3. Can there be a backward direction for time? 4. Can time be understood without also understanding space?

[Antonio Lao]

sol2,

The information carried by a wave packet can be digitized into binary numbers (0s and 1s) using discrete integral values for wavelength (unit of length is clearly defined) and frequency (no value less than 1).

[juju]

Hi all,

I have read some interesting articles about the possibility of a universe with no time.

Basically, this concept boils down to all states of the universe existing in some sort of phase space, where the apparent temporal progressions are a result of momentum in this phase space.

All states are accessible at any time, but not equally probable. The probability of the next state would be a function of the phase space momentum, which would be based on the path history of the universe through these phase space states.

juju

[TillEulenspiegel]

Jayser",,,10e-43 is the point in which time supposedly started, and it all started with a singularity in which carried all the laws of physics, all matter, etc, and on the event horizon of a black hole, it is the point in which there is no time..."

That's not quite pedantically correct.
The singularity viewed as a Quantum event was a realized expression of a QM probability and the primal singularity altho it was all that existed, carried no information ("laws") until its bifurcation into various epochs: (i) heavy particle era (ii) light particle era (iii) radiation era (iv)
matter era.. There are sub-epochs that define other differentiations, but those are the general four we need to demonstrate that, say, matter interaction and photon /matter decoupling did not occur until at ~ 10^7 to 10 ^15, so how could the laws defining photon behavior or atomic interaction occur before those quantities existed?
As far as Time some play it as a fifth epoch, but 10^-43 is not the start of time 10^0 is,. 10^-43 is the place where all physical laws cease to be applicable or phenomenon be describable.

The event horizon of a black hole is the boundary where the influence of the singularity at it's center becomes inescapable even by light and we cannot know what occurs past that point.,tho S.Hawking raised some interesting issues at GR-17 about the information paradox. The acceleration of an in-falling mass (M) approaches c and time dilates, the faster the M accelerates the slower time progresses . The closer vM toward c the more t approaches infinity, so no mass will ever reach the singularity but the total gravitational effect of the BH now includes the Grav of our inflowing of Mass... .

[PRyckman]

Guys if D=(c-v)t
Then c can represent massless and v represent a mass.
If v is equal to c, then D=t
Therefor time only exists as a distance. Without connecting with a distance nothing can be measured. Because without time, there can be no other equations.

If you travelled at light speed you would be frozen no matter how far you travelled you would not age, would not move, or breathe. Until something stopped you from travelling at c. And allowed you to be part of time.

So you don't need any particle detector or two slit experiment to know this.

As for gravitons, doesn't E=mc2 and D=(c-v)t say that gravity is just a by product of this equation? If time is altered by mass and velocity, then at the subatomic scale, an electron may spend more time on one side of the atom relative to the other, thus causing a greater pull/push on one side of the atom, causing it to move towards the object with greater mass

Since light is not altered by time, only distance can affect it. Since the distance of space changes, relative to itself, it is travelling a straight line.

So there is no gravity particle, and magnetics is a chemistry equation.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Your terms are confusing me. The standard for distance(D) is that D=velocity over time.(D=vt) thats physics 101., you have stated that
"D=(c-v)t"
distance = the speed of light ( 300,000 m/s) - velocity times t.

let's see with arbitrary figures. 300,000m/s- 200,000 m/s times 1 sec= 100,000 m.

hmm lets try it the other way .....D=(vt)
200,000 m/s times 1 sec = 200,000 m

theres some wrong math there.

Your last post
"Guys if D=(c-v)t"

It doesn't

"Then c can represent massless and v represent a mass.
If v is equal to c, then D=t"

Well c is the constant for the speed of light in a vacuume....nothing to do with mass, v is velocity not mass.

"If you travelled at light speed you would be frozen"

You cannot accelerate a mass to c . period.

"Therefor time only exists as a distance."

No the two are separate concepts, but you could not traverse a distance unless t indeed exists.

There are other wrong ideas you state, but It's late and I'm not chastising You , but you need to be familiar at least with the basic physical laws including thermodynamics as well as basic Newtonian principles in order to understand and explore the lofty concepts that vex the best minds in the world. I wish You good luck on Your journey.

[KaneOris]

To Saoshant, I to have thought of time as being its own demension also. Now im sure you would have based your idea on something completely different. But i just came to thinking of it one night and ever since ive written a couple of pages on it. Who knows maybe when i go to Uni i may investigate it more and write a PHD on it :)... probably many things wrong with the idea, but ill let myself find out if there is

[juju]

Guys if D=(c-v)t
Then c can represent massless and v represent a mass.
If v is equal to c, then D=t


If v=c then D=O, or t is infinite or both.

An observer riding on a photon would see the rest of the universe moving at the local speed of light and all other photons at rest.

juju

[PRyckman]

If v=c then D=O, or t is infinite or both.


No, look at the equation.
D=(c-v)t
Obviously, if v=c then D=t

You put the infinite's and zero's in there for yourself, because there is no way to solve the equation. The only way to solve the equation is to measure it, to give it a distance. Only then does it interact with time.

Well c is the constant for the speed of light in a vacuume....nothing to do with mass, v is velocity not mass.You cannot accelerate a mass to c . period.

Ok c nothing to do with mass, like I said. And ok, so v must represent a mass, since it can't accelerate to light speed. Like I said.

And as for the physics 101 comment, D=(c-v)t is correct, it's physics 701
The c from E=mc2
Is calculated by cross multiplying that equation, or rather, my distance is cross multiplied from equation for c


One more thing juju. Don't forget that what velocity was equal to right before it was equal to c, has no bearing on D=t it is not the same equation.


The only way to solve this equation is to get out there with a ruler.
Hence, the uncertainty principle, the two slit experiment and "the spooky action at a distance" As Einstein said, sorry I forget it's real name, It has to do with the polarization or spins of the particles, affecting eachother across distance immediatly.

[Antonio Lao]

There is an intimate relation between two quantities such that for all positive values between zero and infinity of the independent variable, two distinct graphs can be shown that the product of ab=a-b.

a=\frac{b}{1-b}

b=\frac{a}{1+a}

1-b=\frac{b}{a}

1+a=\frac{a}{b}

(1-b)(1+a)=1

ab=a-b

The graph of abscissa b versus ordinate a is a discontinuous curve at 1, with 0 to infinity and from negative infinity approaching -1.

The graph of abscissa a versus ordinate b is a curve from 0 and approaching the value 1 at infinity.

[Antonio Lao]

When a and b are certain quantities for time, distance, velocity, mass, charge, force, or energy, the negative nature of these physical quantities can be explained.

This gives a basis for a renormalization principle and that is to find a and b such that

1=\frac{a-b}{ab}

[steelmouse387]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. It occurs to me (as it probably has to many other people in the past) that the only way we know about the passage of time is through movement. You may say that this is not true; that even when everything is still around you, you have an impression of the passage of time.

Things are not still however. While bulk movements may be absent, there are still tiny movements occuring everywhere. Thermal vibrations, quantum fluctuations and the like, but the movement of neurons in your brain (well, the movement of something - however the brain works basically - i'm not a neurologist).

Suppose now that we could stop these movements, disregarding QM for just a second (this argument is more about philosophy than physical observables anyway). If there were no movement - none at all, including the neurons in your brain - there would be no perception of the passage of time. Indeed, this is because your brain would not function, since it depends on the movement of neurons or whatever.

I guess in short I'm saying without movement there would be no time, and further, time is just a product of the way in which humans perceive movement (I suppose an alternative way of saying this is that without time, there would be no speed). Anyways, as I say, these are just some random thoughts on the subject.

(PS. I havent read all the posts for this thread, so sorry if i've copied stuff other people have said)

[Antonio Lao]

but the movement of neurons in your brain
neurons are like rechargeable batteries connected in series or in parallel creating a network of nervous system for the body of a living creature. The electricity moving thru these organic batteries might be just chemical ions.

[juju]

No, look at the equation.
D=(c-v)t
Obviously, if v=c then D=t

D=(c-v)t

if v=c, then (c-v)=0

If (c-v)=0, then D=0.

I wonder if you are thinking about the space/time interval for a photon. For a photon the space interval is equal to the time interval and the space/time interval is equal to zero.

Your equation would be almost correct if it refers to the space/time interval.

Here, (ds^2)=((cdt)^2)-(dr^2)
so, (ds^2)=((cdt)^2)-((vdt)^2)
and (ds^2)=(c^2-v^2)dt^2

juju

[PRyckman]

first off, I'd like to point out once again, that the equation is already proven correct. Second of all if c-v=0 then D=0(t) Just looking at the equation tells you that something travelling light speed doesn't exist in time. And it's distance can only be found if you measure it. Once you measure it, you connect it to time.

Atonio, I know what it looks like on a graph. But you know you can't put it on a graph because to graph it, would show infinite. Therefor it's not the same equation when v=c and can't be graphd.

The only way to measure t for v=c is to measure the distance. Thus knowing it's exact place in the universe. Which pins it to a point in time.

One more thing, notice that if D equals zero, it makes sense because you know very well, that you can't know a photons position and momentum at the same time.

Thus, for light time=0 and distance=measured.

[Antonio Lao]

Atonio, I know what it looks like on a graph. But you know you can't put it on a graph because to graph it, would show infinite. Therefor it's not the same equation when v=c and can't be graphd.
In order to show the duality of time, that is two time variables plotted against each other, one being the abscissa and the other as ordinate, there are two complementary graphs.

one graph is plotted by t1=t2/(1-t2), the other is plotted by t2=t1/(1+t1). The result is t1t2= t1-t2. These two time variables can be equal if and only if t1=t2=0 (both equal zero). When they are not zero, the values can be found by the two graphs depending on which one is the dependent and independent variable.

For one graph, it can show that as t1 approaches infinity, t2 approaches 1. For the other graph, as t2 varies from zero to infinity, there is a discontinuity at t2=1, where t1 approaches infinity from the left and approaches negative infinity from the right. But for all values greater than 1 and as t2 approaches infinity, t1 approaches the value of -1.

[juju]

Second of all if c-v=0 then D=0(t) Just looking at the equation tells you that something travelling light speed doesn't exist in time.

Actually, if your equation is true, what it tells me is that if D=0(t), then something travelling at light speed has zero distance no matter what the value of t.

juju