Does Time Really Exist? Debunking Common Beliefs

[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]

Can you gentleman, explain this.

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]

Rationalization of duality

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 accommodate 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.



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.



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 exactly 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]

there is time

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 . What do you think? 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, doesn't 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 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 development of this distance measure(dimension), and hopefully a general concept that was developing in my mind.

For those interested here are some 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.[/q]

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.