A compilation of The Good Mans thoughts: Time


by John_Farson
Tags: compilation, mans, time
matrixdude
matrixdude is offline
#19
Apr30-05, 02:39 PM
P: 2
Time is purely a reference system for progress.
Progress requires a sense of order .
A sense of order requires a certain inteligence.
Increased inteligence tends to work to declare its own order
When all is well , then time is nowhere. This soon changes , and time once more calls you , for what purpose ? for your progress.

Many moons ago, there were people with no sense of order or of time.
Slowly they became aware of a sense of time , from where ? from their observations of the universe around them.
Their early habits and lifestyles were dictated by sunrise / sunset, winter / summer.

Therefore to some extent they were victims of time.
The universe itself , sun stars moon has a sense of order reflected to us by time.

The universe therfore must have a certain inteligence.

In time, people became more aware of time, and slowly they began to think and construct tools which would allow them to gain control over time .
At the deep level, they feel that this is of vital importance and it is so.

In todays time, we have all the tools and knowledge available to allow us to gain full control over time.
But look around you and see how many have achieved this. Most people today are still total victims of time in that they are possesed with carreers , money , property , egos etc to the detriment of their very souls.
The sad thing is that they know no other way.
But there is always other ways for those whom look, and when you look with sincerity, then a way shall appear , and you must trust your instincts on that one.
Kerrie
Kerrie is offline
#20
Apr30-05, 07:47 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
Kerrie's Avatar
P: 1,188
Quote Quote by Jonny_trigonometry
I should have been more clear, I really don't have anything against Kerrie, in fact I voted for him! or was that Kerry... at any rate
funny how some assume i am male because of my name...
Jonny_trigonometry
Jonny_trigonometry is offline
#21
May8-05, 07:45 PM
P: 533
My humor is too bland and pitiful to even notice I guess. Sorry.
Daminc
Daminc is offline
#22
May10-05, 05:11 AM
P: 157
I'm one of those people who think odd thoughts and write them down. Unfortunately, the path my thoughts go mostly revolve around Physics which is a subject that I do not have a high qualification in. This can be a curse and a blessing.

A curse because many of the questions I have bouncing around in my head may have an answer to anyone with a degree in Physics.

A blessing because I don't recognise what is "impossible" and so I'm not confined by the "reality box" that many qualified people find themselves.

Here's one of the little things I wrote to myself which is related to the subject at hand:

Ref: Time dilation

Is the Time Dilation effect everything to do with the nature of a persons perception of Time and totally independent to Space/Time itself?

Note: Remember thoughts on the speed of light being the interaction limit between particles (or information) on our Space/Time plane instead of an actual velocity of some type.

e.g. the information that allows one particle to recognise and react to a nearby particle travels between them at 3.335640952*10^-9 sec per meter.

This would also recognise that information is massless (as apposed to photons being a massless particle that can be effected by gravity which might indicate that it actually has mass (which is supported by the equation E=MC^2 in that if a photon has an energy signature then it must have mass: M=C^2/E)
.

Also, with regards to abstract information, our whole science is founded upon an abstract concept of numbers.

Numbers in themselves do not mean anything. They simple show some relationship between things, reactions, whatever.

Our whole system can allow us to predict a certain outcome or probability but does nothing to explain the reality of anything. The WHY? or the WHERE? of events that we perceive.

I've got a lot more to say on the subject but I don't want to just type and not have a debate about this. I would like to know what you people think.
Tournesol
Tournesol is offline
#23
May10-05, 11:44 AM
P: 732
Quote Quote by Daminc
Is the Time Dilation effect everything to do with the nature of a persons perception of Time and totally independent to Space/Time itself?
Its not down to human perceptions. It affects muons, which we can safely assume do not have minds.

Note: Remember thoughts on the speed of light being the interaction limit between particles (or information) on our Space/Time plane instead of an actual velocity of some type.

It is standardly regarded as both.


This would also recognise that information is massless (as apposed to photons being a massless particle that can be effected by gravity which might indicate that it actually has mass (which is supported by the equation E=MC^2 in that if a photon has an energy signature then it must have mass: M=C^2/E)[/I].
A photon has no *rest* mass. It's KE is equivalent to mass, however.
Jonny_trigonometry
Jonny_trigonometry is offline
#24
May10-05, 11:52 AM
P: 533
I thought they couldn't escape a black hole because space-time is being sucked in faster than the speed of light past the event horizon...
Daminc
Daminc is offline
#25
May11-05, 05:48 AM
P: 157
Tournesol:

Thanks for your comments :)

With regards to:
Its not down to human perceptions. It affects muons, which we can safely assume do not have minds.
I've just read up a little bit about Muons:
On earth, muons are created when a charged pion decays. The pions are created in an upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation and have a very short decay time--a few nanoseconds. The muons created when the pion decays are also short-lived: their decay time is 2.2 microseconds. However, muons in the atmosphere are moving at very high velocities, so that the time dilation effect of make them easily detectable at the earth's surface.
It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation. We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this.

It is standardly regarded as both.
The thoughts that paragraph was reminding me of was regarding the possiblility of light travelling in a similar way to the Newton's Cradle effect as apposed to Photons actually travelling great distances at the speed of light.

A photon has no *rest* mass. It's KE is equivalent to mass, however.
The use of the word "equivalent" is interesting here. Is this just scientific talk stating "we're not sure but we think this may be likely"? (that photons act like they have mass in certain conditions but don't actually have any mass)

Quick Facts about: special relativity
A physical theory of relativity based on the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and the assumption that the laws of physics are invariant in all inertial systems.
I think it's more and more important that remember that we base a lot of our attempts to understand physics on 'theories' and 'assumptions' and always question the validity of what we think is true.
Faust
#26
May11-05, 08:29 AM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Daminc
It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation. We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this.
I don't know why Tournesol mentioned those obscure muons, when time dilation happens to anything as trivial as a wristwatch. And no Daminc, what is referred to as time dilation has nothing to do with our subjective experience. Put a clock on a rocket, send it out on a very fast trip, and on returning you will see the clock has measured less time than the ones which remained on earth. That has been empirically verified so there's no point arguing against it.

The thoughts that paragraph was reminding me of was regarding the possiblility of light travelling in a similar way to the Newton's Cradle effect as apposed to Photons actually travelling great distances at the speed of light.
You may not realize it, but that's exactly what people thought before Einstein - that light was a wave in the sense that a wave is a disturbance in a medium, and that waves travel faster than the "stuff" that makes up the medium. So your idea is not new, but rather quite old. The medium, or the balls in your Newton's cradle, is known as the luminiferous aether.

I'm not quite sure the existence of the aether has been completely disproved. I think Einstein's position was that we don't need the idea of an aether to explain our observations of the universe; so far no one has been successful at refuting him.
Jonny_trigonometry
Jonny_trigonometry is offline
#27
May11-05, 12:43 PM
P: 533
"It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation. We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this." - Daminic

The decay times of the muons as viewed from the Earth's frame of referance are much higher than thier known decay times at rest. At the speed they travel from the upper atmosphere to the Earth's surface, they wouldn't be able to make it to the surface before decaying if thier decay time wasn't dilated.

If the laws of physics are the same for all frames of referance, how could electromagnetism operate differently between frames? If you agree that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames, then the speed of light being constant is one of the implications that arise. Due to this fact, other implications arise like time dilation and length contraction.

The aether could still be there if there is a universal center. What if the opposite of matter is space, rather than anti-matter. Then if you take the inverse of a wavefunction, you get the energy inherent in space and you'll find that matter can be viewed as "holes" in space. The more distance between matter, the more inherent energy between them. The energy inherent in space drops down to nearly zero at the center of a particle distribution, and approaches zero as the mass of the particle distribution approaches infinity. (yeah I know, a little off topic)
Daminc
Daminc is offline
#28
May12-05, 04:32 AM
P: 157
I've read about "luminiferous aether" a while ago (after a debate I had with someone about a similar subject) and it didn't match what I had in my head.

I appreciate your patience in explaining what must be the basics for you.

2 things may help explain the position I have.

1) Light travels from a distant star and hits Earth. Light from the same star hits another planet, of a similar distance away, with the same magnitude.

Now, I cannot understand how the same photons that left the star would hit Earth because of the dispersion over that distance which is why I imagined a similar effect of a white ball hitting a rack of red balls (snooker). The white ball is the photon leaving the star and the red ball is the photon actually hitting the Earth (which is similar to Netwton,s Cradle).

2) In my head I invisioned a lattice type framework that is space/time (which my friend insisted was the "luminiferous aether" and dismissed) but I don't think this was the case. It started with that model to describe gravity. You know the one, it showed a rubber sheet with a ball in the centre of it and marked with a grid to show the distortion of space/time.

The lattice framework was me trying to envision what the model would be like in 3d and how the lattice would be effected with varying degrees of energy introduced (dispersed and localised) and it appeared that the introduction of energy contracted the lattice cubes near the energy concentration which would stretch the lattice just outside the influence.

This led to wondering that if an area of space/time (a cube in the lattice) had zero energy in it it would be a certain size (for example 1k^3). Any intrduction of energy would contract it.

Now I had the problem of wondering if the distance (from one side of the cube to another) of that 1k had changed to a smaller length. If the distance remained the same but the area in which the distance was contained had contracted then it would seem like anything travelling though it would go slower.

This was stuff I was messing around with about 15 years ago just for something to keep my mind occupied but recently I read something about scientists debating whether the speed of light has always been constant which reminded me of the stuff I've just typed.

If what I though has any merit it would pose the possiblity that even if the speed of light was constant, space/time itself would have changed though varing degreed due to energy concentrations and this would give the impression of the 'c' changing.

This started me down the path of questioning everthing about perception which is still ongoing :)

P.s. Thanks Faust and Jonny for those experimental examples which I'll read up on. I think I remember something about the watch and aircraft experiment a long time ago but I can't remember what parameters they set or if they gave any explaination about the mechanics in play.
Faust
#29
May12-05, 09:02 AM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Daminc
I've read about "luminiferous aether" a while ago (after a debate I had with someone about a similar subject) and it didn't match what I had in my head.
From what I read in your post, I still think it does.

Light travels from a distant star and hits Earth. Light from the same star hits another planet, of a similar distance away, with the same magnitude.

Now, I cannot understand how the same photons that left the star would hit Earth because of the dispersion over that distance
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "dispersion" here. I suspect you imagine that, because the number of photons must be finite and the star is too far away, then individual photons get too "spread out" making it difficult for them to hit the earth. If that is the case then well, you just got acquainted to a dilemma already known by physicists for a long time.

The simplest explanation for how the star can be seen from any point in space (that is, photons never get "dispersed" and there are no points in space in which the star becomes invisible) is that light is a wave, not a particle. By shining, the star creates "bubbles" which travel through 3D space; the larger the surface of the bubble (in other words, the farther from the star it travels), the less intense it becomes, but the bubble is still covering an entire section of 3D space, making the star visible from any point. (I hope you get this, it's easier to draw than to explain)

Scientists were happy with that explanation, until Einstein demonstrated that photons interact with electrons as if they (the photons) were particles, not waves. This is, in essence, the short story of the strange thing known as the principle of duality - light travels as waves but interacts as particles, which is the same as saying it is a wave when we are not looking, and a particle when we are. It's oversimplifying and missing a few details, but the essence is there.

Now if you feel confused about this, worry not. Absolutely everyone else is.

which is why I imagined a similar effect of a white ball hitting a rack of red balls (snooker). The white ball is the photon leaving the star and the red ball is the photon actually hitting the Earth (which is similar to Netwton,s Cradle).
Again, not sure I get your explanation, but it seems to conform to the scientific notion that light begins and ends as a particle, but travels as a wave.

In my head I invisioned a lattice type framework that is space/time (which my friend insisted was the "luminiferous aether" and dismissed) but I don't think this was the case. It started with that model to describe gravity. You know the one, it showed a rubber sheet with a ball in the centre of it and marked with a grid to show the distortion of space/time.

The lattice framework was me trying to envision what the model would be like in 3d and how the lattice would be effected with varying degrees of energy introduced (dispersed and localised) and it appeared that the introduction of energy contracted the lattice cubes near the energy concentration which would stretch the lattice just outside the influence.
Well, from here on I totally lost you. Sorry.

This was stuff I was messing around with about 15 years ago just for something to keep my mind occupied but recently I read something about scientists debating whether the speed of light has always been constant which reminded me of the stuff I've just typed.
The constancy of the speed of light is not a well-understood issue, even among physicists. The best explanation I've seen so far is that c is constant by definition, like the meter, the second, and other fundamental units. If that is really the case, then it doesn't even make sense to talk about the speed of light being different than what it is today. That would be equivalent to saying that a meter could have been shorter in the past than it is today, which is foolish because at any given point a meter has always had the exact length of... a meter!

I'm sure this will raise some eyebrows, so let me stress that the above is just a possibility, an interpretation. I don't think anyone has established the reason why c is constant beyond any reasonable doubt.

I remember something about the watch and aircraft experiment a long time ago but I can't remember what parameters they set or if they gave any explaination about the mechanics in play.
They put two atomic clocks on two planes, and had them flying around the earth in opposite directions. According to a source:

"The atomic clocks on the planes flying east lost 184 nanoseconds because of their speed of travel relative to the earth surface clocks. They gained 125 nanoseconds due to the gravitational red shift. The planes flying west gained 96 nanoseconds due to their motion and gained 177 nanoseconds due to gravity. The measured effects were within 10% of the predicted effects which was within the 20% error in the experimental technique"

But the explanation is not simple because it involves accelerating frames, which introduces the complexities of General Relativity. But the point remains that the clocks did slow down, which is far easier to understand (and accept) that the story about muons decaying.
Daminc
Daminc is offline
#30
May12-05, 10:07 AM
P: 157
From what I read in your post, I still think it does.
The reason why I think it differs from the Aether is that the lattice isn't a conventional medium it is simple an extension of the 2d model of the rubber sheet example.

There has to be 'something' that allows matter to exist in and travel through surely.

The lattice framework was simply a way of visualising spacetime in 3d.

The idea of light acting as a particle and a wave has always seemed to me as a bit of a cop out by the scientific big-chiefs. I have yet to see a valid reason why it couldn't be a particle that is riding on a wave of some sort.

Well, from here on I totally lost you. Sorry.
Sorry about that I'll see if I can create a different visual:

Imagine a big 3d grid made out of elastic threads. When there is no energy present the x, y and z are all straight. When energy is introduced into the grid (lattice) the energy pulls on the elastic threads causing them to stretch. Some threads will now be closer together and some further apart. The more the energy is focused in a single spot the greater the pull on the elastic threads.

Does that make more sense?

As a side issue with regards to that experiment that disproves the Aether:

If a solid beam of light was pulsed so that it was exactly 1m. If you were to slow the beam down the beam would appear longer and if it went faster than the speed of light it would appear shorter since the maximum speed information travels, including our brain processes, is the speed of light. (The beam of light however would remain the same size independant to any observations)

Has the experiment been carried out to determine if there is a change in the characteristics of the light with regards to the Aether experiment?
Faust
#31
May12-05, 10:45 AM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Daminc
The reason why I think it differs from the Aether is that the lattice isn't a conventional medium it is simple an extension of the 2d model of the rubber sheet example.
I think the central issue is whether we need to posit the existence of a medium to carry information across space. In that sense your lattice is similar to the aether, in other respects it might be different. But the idea of aether was never too refined in the first place, it's only a vague picture anyway.

There has to be 'something' that allows matter to exist in and travel through surely.
Why can't matter exist and move through empty space?

The idea of light acting as a particle and a wave has always seemed to me as a bit of a cop out by the scientific big-chiefs. I have yet to see a valid reason why it couldn't be a particle that is riding on a wave of some sort.
I wouldn't call it a cop-out. The problem is complex and no one has found an intuitive way to express it. Particle-wave duality is counter-intuitive and almost certainly not true, but until someone finds a better way to explain the facts, it's all we have.

The problem with the idea of a particle riding on a wave of some sort is that, more likely than not, in reality light is neither a particle nor a wave.

Imagine a big 3d grid made out of elastic threads. When there is no energy present the x, y and z are all straight. When energy is introduced into the grid (lattice) the energy pulls on the elastic threads causing them to stretch. Some threads will now be closer together and some further apart. The more the energy is focused in a single spot the greater the pull on the elastic threads.
That makes some sense. Now it's up to you to do anything interesting with that model.

As a side issue with regards to that experiment that disproves the Aether:
Just a quick note: the aether has not been "disproved". What Einstein showed was that we didn't have to think about it to explain the phenomena he set out to explain. It's quite possible that in the future the idea becomes necessary to explain some other phenomenon.

If a solid beam of light was pulsed so that it was exactly 1m. If you were to slow the beam down the beam would appear longer and if it went faster than the speed of light it would appear shorter since the maximum speed information travels, including our brain processes, is the speed of light. (The beam of light however would remain the same size independant to any observations)
Your language is a bit confusing, but I think I know what you're trying to get at. It sounds similar to some of Einstein's thought experiments, such as the one in which he imagined seeing himself lagging behind if he could travel faster than light (ie, his own image).

Has the experiment been carried out to determine if there is a change in the characteristics of the light with regards to the Aether experiment?
I think the greatest source of confusion regarding relativity is the difficulty of doing experiments. It's very hard to accelerate things to relativistic speeds, the few experiments we have are very limited and, even though they imply the mathematics of the theory are correct, their meaning is still not entirely clear. Take the experiment with atomic clocks in airplanes I mentioned before: the clocks slow down due to the uniform component of motion, and speed up due to gravity, and we can only measure the combined effect. That gives room for people to dispute claims about time, space, travel, etc. All that can be said with certainty is that the measurements were in agreement with the calculations, within a certain margin of error. In the end, that's all we can really know.

If you are interested in learning about relativity, I see there's a section of the forum devoted to it (it's physicsforums.com after all!) Over there people seem more knowledgeable about physics. I'm certainly no expert myself.
Tournesol
Tournesol is offline
#32
May12-05, 10:52 AM
P: 732
Quote Quote by Daminc
It's human perceptions that note the apparent effects of Time Dilation.
And everything else.

We should question whether our perceptions are accurate enough (or non-biased enough) to accord a Physical law to a phenomenon such as this.
Why should we be in more doubt about TD than anything else ? What about the use of instruments ?

The use of the word "equivalent" is interesting here. Is this just scientific talk stating "we're not sure but we think this may be likely"? (that photons act like they have mass in certain conditions but don't actually have any mass)
it's observed:
gravitational lensing.


I think it's more and more important that remember that we base a lot of our attempts to understand physics on 'theories' and 'assumptions' and always question the validity of what we think is true.
you think scientists don't do that already ?
Daminc
Daminc is offline
#33
May13-05, 03:20 AM
P: 157
Quote Quote by Faust
Why can't matter exist and move through empty space?
IMHO, I haven't read anything to suggest that zero occurs in nature therefore any area of space (except maybe outside the sphere of the expanding universe which I can only guess if this is valid) would have some sort of energy signiture/frequency that would give it a property and stop it from being empty space.

Quote Quote by Faust
more likely than not, in reality light is neither a particle nor a wave.
Possibly, although that would seriously limit what it could be

Quote Quote by Faust
That makes some sense. Now it's up to you to do anything interesting with that model.
The most I can do is more thought experiments and doodles. I simply do not have the education (and the brains) to be able do anything conclusive with the math required.

Quote Quote by Tournesol
Why should we be in more doubt about TD than anything else ?
We shouldn't. I doubt everything. I'm in a permanently confused state of mind questioning the validity of everything I see, hear, feel etc

At best, I can acheive something like a 95% probability that something is true

Quote Quote by Tournesol
you think scientists don't do that already?
Some do, some don't. I see too often scientists (or people how have opinions of a similar type) state things as facts, as certainties not probabilities.

Just think of how many things are based upon hundreds of assumtions (that, at best, might have a 99% of being correct): 0.99^100=0.366 (to 3 s.f.)

Quote Quote by Tournesol
it's observed:
gravitational lensing.
Ok. Light is seen to bend due to gravitational influences. But as far as I'm aware we still don't understand what light is or what gravity is (or loads of other stuff either). All we can do is be able to predict the behavior of the phenomena’s.


Irrelevant comment: I've just read this in one of my IT newsletters which made me smile:

"They also have a red bumper sticker that reads, 'If this sticker is blue then you're driving too fast'."
Faust
#34
May13-05, 09:15 AM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by Daminc
IMHO, I haven't read anything to suggest that zero occurs in nature therefore any area of space (except maybe outside the sphere of the expanding universe which I can only guess if this is valid) would have some sort of energy signiture/frequency...
"Some sort of energy" sounds a lot like a new-age expression. Energy has a very specific meaning in physics, and a very vague meaning otherwise. Both usages of the word are OK, but applying the vague concept to the preciseness of physics really leads nowhere.

Light is seen to bend due to gravitational influences. But as far as I'm aware we still don't understand what light is or what gravity is (or loads of other stuff either). All we can do is be able to predict the behavior of the phenomena’s.
That's all we can ever do. If you don't like "light bends due to gravity", then you won't like any explanation at all. But that is only because you are expecting the explanation to refer to something real, when the only real thing is the phenomenon itself. Explanations are nothing more than intellectual devices that help us think about real phenomena; the explanations themselves are not real, and it's beside the point to argue about it.

Once you understand that, you may become more comfortable with modern physics. Its explanations are not true in the sense that they correspond to real entities, but they are true in the sense that thinking about them helps you find out things about reality you didn't know before. Expecting more than that is expecting too much; to think you can do more than that is foolishness.
Daminc
Daminc is offline
#35
May13-05, 10:32 AM
P: 157
Quote Quote by Faust
"Some sort of energy" sounds a lot like a new-age expression. Energy has a very specific meaning in physics, and a very vague meaning otherwise. Both usages of the word are OK, but applying the vague concept to the preciseness of physics really leads nowhere.
I'm not a Physicist, I'm a person interested in Physics so you'll have to excuse my imprecision with the use of certain phrases and words.

Quote Quote by Faust
you are expecting the explanation to refer to something real, when the only real thing is the phenomenon itself.
True, Cause and Consequence. The phenomenon is the consequence of something real happening and I'm just curious to know what it is

Quote Quote by Faust
thinking about them helps you find out things about reality you didn't know before. Expecting more than that is expecting too much; to think you can do more than that is foolishness.
True again. Anything that helps me to find out new things gets a big thumbs up. Also, I always expect too much and I am a fool (I'm just a very curious one)
Jonny_trigonometry
Jonny_trigonometry is offline
#36
May13-05, 04:31 PM
P: 533
"I'm sure this will raise some eyebrows, so let me stress that the above is just a possibility, an interpretation. I don't think anyone has established the reason why c is constant beyond any reasonable doubt." - Faust

It's constant because Epsilon_naught and Mu_Naught are constants. They are the permittivity and permiability of space constants. They help to define how strong magnetic and electric fields are per unit space. They are much like the gravitational constant G in that they define a magnitude of field strength. Light travels through space because it's a constantly changing electro-magnetic disturbance. Maxwell's equations show that a change in electric field induces a nearby magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field induces a nearby electric field. It just so happens that they can't change instantaneously, so they change over time and play leapfrog across empty space (sort of "bootstrapping" each other).


Register to reply

Related Discussions
compilation for old exam, need advise for solutions. Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Mans cott General Discussion 19
Best Family Guy clips compilation General Discussion 0
compilation of study guides Forum Feedback & Announcements 0
My thoughts on Space-Time and Matter-Gravity General Physics 4