Is Time Truly a Dimension or Something Else Entirely?

[Makep]

It has been an interesting journey of discussion and thoughtful discourse of time thus far. It makes me wonder, when I read through, about the concept of matter, energy, space and time. I would like to pose some of these in here, and see if they are related. As much as we have talked about time:
1. What is space?
2. What is energy?
3. What is matter / antimatter?
4. And I pose again the question, What is time?
Can any of them exist independantly? I suppose the big question is, 'Can matter exist without space?' What came first, matter or time or space or energy? Is our current science up to this to give us the anwer. If we know which came first, then we can hypothesize as to why others would follow, and device experiments to prove or disprove. In asking what is time, it is like asking what is matter, or energy or space? We really do not know. We take it for granted as an abstract entity that we utilize to explain changes happening with space, energy and matter and time itself.
We speak of time, space and matter. But now we have the concept of anti-matter. We should also have the concept of anti-space, anti-time, and anti-energy. Perhaps by understanding the opposite of time, can we know time itself. The fundamental question is: Which came first - matter or energy or space or time? How have they been interacting to keep in check the physical laws as we know them? I am dumbfounded.

 

[petm1]

It's however very clear that time isn't a form of matter.


Why is this very clear? All atoms may not occupy the same space second to second, but they do occupy their own time, by some thought their duration has been in the present for about thirteen billion years and counting. On the other hand you may be right, time isn’t a form of matter, but I would think that matter does appear to be a form of time, after all our very concept of time comes from the intrinsic motion of matter.

 

[Dale]

Right, rocks are a physical thing and physics can described exactly with precise definitions and observational evidence what the nature of rocks are. Physics puts the rock and all other things that are made in similar ways to the rock in the category of matter.

Really, so what is mass?

The reason I ask is because in the final analysis there are no physics definitions of any of these things outside of the type of definition that I provided for time (a theory using a quantity and an experimental/operational method for measuring it). I.e. mass is the thing represented by m in the physics equations. You can measure it with a balance scale. You can use the equations to describe its relationship to other things and to predict experimentally measurable outcomes, but beyond those what is mass?

When I ask you if you think time is physical and you tell me that it is physical because it is part of physics, well I will have to ask you to be very specific and tell me what category of physics time is a part of. Since you pointed out that time is part of physics, and physics deals with matter and energy, which category do you think time belongs in?

I wouldn't categorize physics like that, nor have I ever seen anyone else do so. Since you are making up this categorization, which category do you think distance belongs in? You should put time in the same category.

Also, what is your time-free definition of energy?

I have stated my view on time based on observation and lack of evidence to prove that I am mistaken.

A typical troll/crackpot comment. I notice that you failed to post your physical theory without time.

 

[Fredrik]

I read your post again. You talk of time in terms of math.

But I didn't claim that time is a specific mathematical expression, which is what you've been saying that I've been saying.

Here is what you said:

It seems that you completely ignored the stuff I said after the parts you underlined. Those things are no less important.

What you said here does not definitively state if you think time is a physical thing or not.

What do you mean by "a physical thing"?

You just need to define your terms so that what you are saying is not vague or ambiguous,

There's nothing vague or ambiguous about what I said.

Science is about looking about the world around you and trying to figure out what it is and how it works through already established facts.

That's actually a pretty naive view of science. What you don't seem to understand is that the only established facts are statements of the form "prediction W of theory X agrees with the result of experiment Y with accuracy Z".

I asked you what you thought time was. I am sure that you can make your own observations and conclusions without depending on some authority on the subject. We all know what Einstein has to say about time. So I ask you, after getting an understanding of what Einstein said about time and by your personal experience of the world around you, what conclusions have you come up with?

As I've been trying to tell you, every answer to the question of what time "is" must be in the form of a theory that accurately predicts the results of experiments. If it isn't, it's not really an answer. It's just irrelevant BS. So there are only two ways to interpret your question: You're either asking me to show you a theory that's better than GR, or you're asking me to answer with irrelevant BS.

I don't have a better theory than GR (obviously), and I don't have time for irrelevant BS.

 

[Fredrik]

Why is this very clear?

Concepts like "time" and "matter" can only be unambiguously defined within the framework of a theory. What I meant is that it's easy to see that time and matter are two completely different things in all of the current theories. If I'm not allowed to use the definitions of "matter" and "time" provided by the current theories, then I consider the question "Is time matter?" ill-defined, since neither of the concepts have an exact definition.

 

[CosmologyHobbyist]

Hello! I find this thread fascinating. This discussion reminds me how scientific concepts need good visuals to be understandable to laymen. Please allow me to make an attempt, not using GR, but using basic mechanics.
A person who recognizes the concept of "before" and "after" recognizes the concept scientists call time. A person who recognizes that he himself is aging, recognises time as an external agent of change, not as an internally generated self-perception.
But is time a real thing? Time is no more or less real than distance, they are neither solid, liquid, gas, nor energy. Time and distance are both measurements, and as such, must be taken into accounts as parameters in scientific equations.
Even a culture that has no concept of time passage, but lives in eternal "now", still utilises the concept of time if it can distinguish between "fast" and "slow". The formula Velocity=Distance/Time means the measurement (or even perception) of different speeds involves using time as a reference.
On the other hand, the concepts "near" and "far" do not involve time, but only involve distance, unless travel time brought up. "Big" and "little" also involve distance, but not time.
On a less obvious level, the concept of force, the difference between a tap and a heavy blow, uses time in the measurement formulae. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this also includes the measurement of the force of gravity on an object, so the distinguishing between "heavy things" and and "light things", utilises the concept of time, in an indirect manner.
Is the "concept of time" a real thing? It is just as real as the concept of distance. Both have their place is scientific formula, and are just as required and real in those formula, as mass or energy. But obviously, time is not mass or energy, or it would not need its own parameter. Although time is similar to distance in that both are measurements, they are separate identities, and are not usually interchangeable. So from this point of view, time is as real as distance, mass or energy.
A culture that has no concept of the passage of time, still makes indirect reference to the scientific concept of time whenever making reference to velocity or force. Such a culture can not be considered as free from a misconception; it has probably dropped the references to passage of time because there is no need to work within that concept. I have no need to know the value of a Euro because I don't use Euros, I do know the value of a dollar because I use dollars. A culture that does not use something, has no requirement to retain it in its language or thinking.
On the other end of the scale is scientific formula, which are use very useful for making predictions about behaviours of atomic constituents, and about behaviours of astronomical objects. On these very small and very large scales, common behaviour is often difficult to understand from our human perspective. However, because the formula is so useful in making predictions, the formula and extrapolated ramifications becomes more important than being able to relate it to human-scale experience.
In answer to BoySherpas original question, Is time a dimension? I'm not qualified to answer that question from a GR perspective, and the question was asked in a GR forum. But it would be helpful to laymen if someone brilliant with visuals can come up with GR illustrations. One of my favorites concerns the precession of the orbit of Mercury, that really helped me get my head around the effect of gravity on spacetime. And when I understood how gravity can change space distances or time measurements, it made space and time both seem more understandable, even if they remain intangible.

 

[CosmologyHobbyist]

That may have been a bit longwinded, but the point is that some good visuals could help laymen understand some common applications of scientific theory.

 

[ThomasT]

I have been trying to figure this one out for some time now. I have read much on the subject, but it seems to be dealt with in such a cavalier fashion. So, here goes...

We speak of space-time as if it were something packaged. I have a problem with this. Let me list the difficulties I have:

Concerning position:
1. In physical 3-space, I can position an object anywhere I like, relative to an arbitrary (0,0,0) position.
2. After any arbitrary operation, the objects position can be anywhere in 3-space, including any previous position.
3. The object may be placed in + or - position relative to the origin.
4. Any operation changing the objects position instantiates or necessitates the creation of time. Without a change of position, there is no need to speak of time.
5. Changes in position may be made with an infinity of possible velocities and accelerations, positing "time"
Concerning time:
A. I have no control over the timing of an event - it always occurs at the present - dissimilar from item 1.
B. I can never reuse the present or a previous time - dissimilar from item 2.
C. Causality forces only forward motion in time - dissimilar from item 3.
D. The flow of time does not instantiate a change of position - dissimilar from item 4.
E. Time does not seem to have various rates of flow (relativity excepted) - dissimilar from item 5.

It would seem, then, that time is only superficially similar to 3-space, in that it operates in some mathematical models in a fashion similar to the spatial distances. However, A-E behaviors are distinctly different from 1-5 behaviors.

So, how can we group time with space? It would seem time is something wholly different, and perhaps not of the same substance.

Any help?

Three dimensional space refers to a backdrop for communicating positions and orientations (arrangements, configurations) of physical objects. Time refers to changes in, or the fact of different, positions, orientations, arrangements, configurations of some set(s) of physical objects in that space.

Space is configurations.
Time is incongruent configurations.

 

[john 8]

But I didn't claim that time is a specific mathematical expression, which is what you've been saying that I've been saying.


There's nothing vague or ambiguous about what I said.


That's actually a pretty naive view of science. What you don't seem to understand is that the only established facts are statements of the form "prediction W of theory X agrees with the result of experiment Y with accuracy Z".


As I've been trying to tell you, every answer to the question of what time "is" must be in the form of a theory that accurately predicts the results of experiments. If it isn't, it's not really an answer. It's just irrelevant BS. So there are only two ways to interpret your question: You're either asking me to show you a theory that's better than GR, or you're asking me to answer with irrelevant BS.

I don't have a better theory than GR (obviously), and I don't have time for irrelevant BS.

My first post on this thread was that I said that time was not a physical thing and was just a consideration.


Dalespam said this in response to the physical nature of time.

“IMO, time is simply the "t" in the "d/dt" terms from all the physics equations. As far as observational evidence goes, every clock is based on some physical mechanism that has a "d/dt" term in it somewhere, so there is probably evidence on your wrist. “


So Dalespam says time is the symbol “t” that is used in a math equation. Dalespam says that this is observational evidence of time. So if this is observational evidence that means that time can be seen with our eyes. So based on the observational evidence that Dalespam gave, what does time look like?


Fredrik said the definition of time is:


“Regarding the definition of time...

We can define a coordinate system in Newtonian mechanics, SR and GR as a function , where M is spacetime, and then define "coordinate time" as a component of that function. In SR and GR it's also necessary to define "proper time", which is the integral of along a curve.

That takes care of the definitions in the mathematical models used in these three theories, but the theories must still include postulates that tell us how these things are related to what clock's measure. In Newtonian mechanics, clocks measure coordinate time. In SR and GR, a clock measures the proper time of the curve that represents its motion.”


Does this definition of time give a physical description of a thing called time?

Or is this a mathematical description of time?

So far what type of description of time has been given? Physical? Mathematical?



I asked Fredrik if he thought that time was more than a mathematical equation and he gave this response:

“Time is certainly more than that mathematical expression, but any answer to the question of what time "is", will always be in the form of a mathematical model and a set of instructions about how to use that model to make predictions about the real world. The best answer we have so far is the one provided by general relativity. The relevant "instruction about how to use the model to make predictions" says that what a clock measures is the proper time of the curve that represents the clock's motion. I don't think anyone has a better answer than that at this time.

Note that two definitions of time are needed. First we have to define time in a mathematical model (in this case as a certain integral), and then we have to define it operationally (as "what a clock measures"). Then we postulate how the two are related.”


Fredrik said time was more than math and then proceeded to show how time can only described in the form of a mathematical model.

I am not trying to harass Fredrik or Dalespam, I am just pointing out the fact that up to this point no physical description has been given of this thing called time.

I will continue to show you that no one will give a physical definition, reference, or observation that proves that time is a physical thing.






The following post was directed toward Dalespam:

Originally Posted by john 8
Yes in physics equations the concept of time is symbolized with the letter t. So let me ask you, in all physics equations, does this symbol "t" represent a real physical thing or a concept?


Dalespam’s response:

Obviously a real physical thing. How can you get more physical than a physical variable measured by a physical device that operates according to a physical principle?

Here Dalespam says that time is physical. Still no physical description has been provided. Saying that something is physical just because you say it is physical is not science. What needs to be provided is some physical evidence.

This conversation is akin to discussions about the existence of God with believers. They all say God exists yet not one speck of physical proof. So since this is a science form, and we do not, as logical thinking people go on faith or our feelings to prove our claims, I would like to see someone provide some cold hard facts that back up the claim that time is a physical thing.

Dalespam, you say time is a physical thing. Please get on with it and describe to the rest of this forum in what way time is a physical thing. Instead of saying time is physical, just let the facts speak for themselves.

As I've been trying to tell you, every answer to the question of what time "is" must be in the form of a theory that accurately predicts the results of experiments. If it isn't, it's not really an answer. It's just irrelevant BS. So there are only two ways to interpret your question: You're either asking me to show you a theory that's better than GR, or you're asking me to answer with irrelevant BS.

Look Fredrik, if you think that time is a physical thing then just explain what physical evidence has lead you to this conclusion.

Again, if we were debating the physical reality of a rock, car, water, electricity or any of the other physical things in this universe all you would have to do is tell me to look up the references and definitions or even just look at the world around me to discover that any physical thing that we talk about is indeed physical. So just provide evidence that time is physical. What has brought you to the conclusion that time is a physical thing? What physical evidence have you percieved. Which bodily sense was stimulated by the presence of this physical thing called time that gave you certainty that time is a physical thing.

Please describe the physical properties of this thing you call time. That is it, keep it simple and scientific.

Thank you.

 

[meteor9]

I didn't want burdening this thread because some people found all my statements 'false and irrelevant' , so i posted my conception of time in the other thread 'Time dilation confusion' , if by any chance you are interested you can visit that thread .

Thank you !

 

[Dale]

What needs to be provided is some physical evidence.

You know perfectly well that there are literally centuries worth of well-known physical evidence. However, just so there is no excuse for you to continue to use this absurd argument here is a small sample: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Here Dalespam says that time is physical. Still no physical description has been provided. Saying that something is physical just because you say it is physical is not science.

You have been provided physical descriptions. Any scientific description consists of two parts: theory and experiment. You seem to want a non-scientific description since the theoretical and experimental aspects of time have already been addressed.

This conversation is akin to discussions about the existence of God with believers.

Another typical crackpot comment. Again, if you were not a troll, then you could post your physical theory without time.

 

[john 8]

You know perfectly well that there are literally centuries worth of well-known physical evidence. However, just so there is no excuse for you to continue to use this absurd argument here is a small sample: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.

Thank you for the reference. There is much information at that site. It will take a lot of time to read it all. Since you seem to be more familiar with this site maybe you can point out where it gives a description of the physical nature of time. Not what time is claimed to do, but the actual description of this thing called time. You have said that time is a physical thing, so in the website that you sent me can you just show me where the physical structure of time is described.

This argument of mine would be absurd if there was physical evidence of this thing you call time. There is no scientific reference that describes time as having an atomic structure or as being a wave. You say time is a physical thing. All physical things have an atomic structure or are a wave (frequency). Where is the reference that give the physcical nature of time?

:You have been provided physical descriptions. Any scientific description consists of two parts: theory and experiment. You seem to want a non-scientific description since the theoretical and experimental aspects of time have already been addressed.

Where, which post gave a physical description of time? You do realize that all physical things that exist in this universe ultimately consist of atoms electrons and such, or are a wave, I did not see such a description of time in this thread.

Lets keep this simple.

You say time is a physical thing.
We can agree that all physical things are made of an atomic structure or are produced by those things that have an atomic structure.

Now correct me if I am wrong, if something is considered to be physical then it is either made of particles or waves, right? So with that in mind, where does time fit in?

 

[petm1]

Now correct me if I am wrong, if something is considered to be physical then it is either made of particles or waves, right? So with that in mind, where does time fit in?

The present, the duration were particles and/or waves interact. It is the present that dilates, more energy in the longer the duration of the present and the slower our clocks count.

 

[Al68]

Now correct me if I am wrong, if something is considered to be physical then it is either made of particles or waves, right? So with that in mind, where does time fit in?

Well, I'll give it a shot. Distance isn't made of particles or waves. Is distance physical?

Time, like distance, isn't composed of particles or waves, but is used to describe intervals between physical events. This is why time is referred to as a dimension, because, like distance, two events can be separated by it. And this simple fact is the reason time (and distance) are useful concepts.

And any useful definition of time will be very similar to a useful definition of distance, in the sense that both are intervals between "physical things", not "physical things" themselves.

So, yes, time is a dimension instead of a substance.

 

[john 8]

Originally Posted by john 8
Right, rocks are a physical thing and physics can described exactly with precise definitions and observational evidence what the nature of rocks are. Physics puts the rock and all other things that are made in similar ways to the rock in the category of matter.

Really, so what is mass?.

Lets stick to the subject of time. We can discuss what mass is in a different thread.

The reason I ask is because in the final analysis there are no physics definitions of any of these things outside of the type of definition that I provided for time (a theory using a quantity and an experimental/operational method for measuring it). I.e. mass is the thing represented by m in the physics equations. You can measure it with a balance scale. You can use the equations to describe its relationship to other things and to predict experimentally measurable outcomes, but beyond those what is mass? .

You are wrong when you say that there are no physics definitions of any of these things, these things I assume you to mean, time, mass, physical, matter. (You really need to be more specific when you say "any of these things") I have a physics dictionary in front of me that has 852 pages of definitions. You tell me what thing you say physics does not have a definition for and I will gladly check my dictionary for the definition.

A typical troll/crackpot comment. I notice that you failed to post your physical theory without time.

It is not a theory. There is no physical evidence of this thing called time. There is no definition or explanation of the physical nature of time, if there was, someone would have given a reference that provided evidence that time is an object or thing that is made of a particle or wave. The mere fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has without any precise physical description of the physical nature of time proves my point. Any comment that you have in response to this post should have a definitive undeniable definition or reference that explains what time is made of. If you want to show that I am wrong in my assertion that time is just a consideration and is not physical all you have to do is provide some scientific evidence that shows in fact that time is a physical thing.

I bet that no one will be able to provide any evidence or standard scientific reference that states time is a physical thing. Look all over the web. Check all of your reference books. Check all of your dictionaries. You will see that there is no definition or reference that states that time is a physical thing.

I will help you out here in your search, check out Stephen Hawking book “A Brief History Of Time”. Check the glossary under time (properties of). Check all your books by Einstein, Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, Richard P. Feynman, Brian Greene, or any other physicists and check the glossary under time and you will see that nobody at any time in any book has ever given a description of the physical nature of time. Many have said time is physical, but none have ever described in what way time is physical. Saying something is true because you believe it is true is pure faith and religion. If any of these physicists believe that time is a physical thing than where did they get this idea? Where is the proof to base this idea on?

Seriously, if you think time is a physical thing then just provide physical evidence. If time is physical and there is time where I am, maybe you can tell me what to look for or how time is perceptible to a living thing. You have to realize that if time is a physical thing, it will have some effect or impact on other things, living things would be able to perceive this physical thing in some way, so in what way do you think that time is perceived by man? Give a reference, definition or observation that provides evidence that time is a physical thing.

 

[john 8]

Originally Posted by john 8
Now correct me if I am wrong, if something is considered to be physical then it is either made of particles or waves, right? So with that in mind, where does time fit in?

The present, the duration were particles and/or waves interact. It is the present that dilates, more energy in the longer the duration of the present and the slower our clocks count.

I would like to know what you were trying to say here. The question was if someone thinks time is a physical thing then is it a particle or wave? What do you think?

 

[john 8]

Originally Posted by john 8
Now correct me if I am wrong, if something is considered to be physical then it is either made of particles or waves, right? So with that in mind, where does time fit in?

Well, I'll give it a shot. Distance isn't made of particles or waves. Is distance physical?

Time, like distance, isn't composed of particles or waves, but is used to describe intervals between physical events. This is why time is referred to as a dimension, because, like distance, two events can be separated by it. And this simple fact is the reason time (and distance) are useful concepts.

And any useful definition of time will be very similar to a useful definition of distance, in the sense that both are intervals between "physical things", not "physical things" themselves.

So, yes, time is a dimension instead of a substance.

Well put. You got it right.

Now let me ask you, where do you suppose some people get the idea that time is an actual physical thing?

How is it that you can simply and concisely state what time is and yet others who have a good knowledge of physics can not seem to grasp the simplicity of the true nature of time?

Thank You for your input, it is a relief to see that there is someone else who can clearly see what time is.

 

[Dale]

It is not a theory.

Thanks for finally addressing this. I thought not. Since by your own admission you cannot construct a working theory of physics without time then time must be physical. Using the theoretical idea of time I can make lots of correct physical predictions; without time you cannot make any. Time is therefore physical, as every experimental validation of every physics theory confirms.

By the way, I would love for someone to produce such a theory. It would be very interesting. But until someone does your speculation is unscientific.

 

[Fredrik]

Originally Posted by john 8
Now correct me if I am wrong, if something is considered to be physical then it is either made of particles or waves, right? So with that in mind, where does time fit in?
...
Well put. You got it right.

Now let me ask you, where do you suppose some people get the idea that time is an actual physical thing?

Only crazy people think that time is a physical thing according to your definition of "a physical thing". (Note that we didn't know what your definition was when this discussion started). There are however other reasonable ways to define what "physical" means. For example, you could define it so that anything measurable is considered physical. Another option is to define it so that any concept that's defined by a theory and (according to that same theory) affects the probabilities of the possible results of some experiment is considered physical.

How is it that you can simply and concisely state what time is and yet others who have a good knowledge of physics can not seem to grasp the simplicity of the true nature of time?

Who says that the true nature of time is simple? People who know physics can tell you how time is defined in the current theories, and how to perform measurements to check a theory's predictions involving time. But they also know that all the current theories must break down at some point. No one who knows physics believes that the current theories are making the correct predictions about extremely short times or distances, or extremely high energy densities. Something else must replace the current theories, and whatever that is, it's not likely to be "simple". Thousands of people have been working on it for decades, and they haven't succeeded yet.

Thank You for your input, it is a relief to see that there is someone else who can clearly see what time is.

Do you actually believe that there's anyone here who doesn't agree with what Al68 said there?

 

[john 8]

Thanks for finally addressing this. I thought not. Since by your own admission you cannot construct a working theory of physics without time then time must be physical. Using the theoretical idea of time I can make lots of correct physical predictions; without time you cannot make any. Time is therefore physical, as every experimental validation of every physics theory confirms.

By the way, I would love for someone to produce such a theory. It would be very interesting. But until someone does your speculation is unscientific.

I am not trying to construct a working theory of physics without time. You are adding some requirement to this time discussion. If time was physical then its physicality would not depend on what I thought.

You say time is physical, and have not provided any evidence of how time is physical. If time is physical then it will exist as a particle or a wave. Just explain how you think time is physical.

You need to explain why you think time is physical. The burden of proof lies with you.

My assertion that time is not physical is not speculation, it is based on the fact that there is no evidence to support the idea that time is physical, and the fact that you have not said whether time is a particle or a wave, or given any explanation of how time is physical proves my point. You still have not given any evidence that time is physical.

Lets make this simple. I have told you why I think that time is not physical, you tell me why you think time is physical.

 

[Sjorris]

John, the 'physical' you are talking of is not the same as all others in this thread are talking about.

You are using a definition of 'physical' which is synonymous with 'material' (in it's broadest sense, so including photons, muons, waves and whatnot), everyone else is using it meaning 'part of a physical theory'.

A mathematical description of time doesn't make it less true. One could easily restate the mathematical formulations in words (sadly, language is far less suitable for describing physical theories than math) and it wouldn't lose or gain any extra credibility.
Time is a concept which is used in a lot* of physical theories, therefore being physical.
Special relativity, for example, makes it very obvious that you can't describe the universe without the concept of time, therefore time has to be part of the universe, so any physical theory describing the universe has to include the concept of time, which makes time a physical concept.

I've been trying to come up with a more clear defintion of what time is, but it's hard without using some kind of self-reference like 'change', distance on the 'time axis', and these are just for the non-relativistic concept of time.

* Simplified physical theories for stationary situations do not need the concept of time, but these are just special cases (d/dt=0) of more general physical theories.

 

[john 8]

Originally Posted by john 8
Now correct me if I am wrong, if something is considered to be physical then it is either made of particles or waves, right? So with that in mind, where does time fit in?

Now let me ask you, where do you suppose some people get the idea that time is an actual physical thing?

Only crazy people think that time is a physical thing according to your definition of "a physical thing". (Note that we didn't know what your definition was when this discussion started).

This is a poor excuse for not answering a question. My definition of physical is the definition of physical as it is found in a standard dictionary for the English language and for physics. I am not using some secret or mysterious definition of physical.

So tell me what you think my definition of physical is and we will see if you are right about this crazy people thing. Besides it is your responsibility to clear up any misunderstood words in what you are reading. When I use a word I assume that anyone who reads that term will define that term as per the standard definition of that term. If I ever uses an archaic, or special definition of a term I always make it clear how I am using that term.

Stop avoiding answering the question. You say time is physical, so grab your dictionary, Get the correct definition, and tell me how you think time is physical. Maybe you had a misunderstanding of what physical means, if this is the case then I can see how this whole discussion with you on time has dragged on so long.

Let me know if you had a different understanding of physical, then we can clear that up and start this discussion anew. If, however, you did have the correct understanding of physical, then please explain to me how you think time is physical. Remember that all things that are classified as physical in this universe are composed of either particles or waves.

I would like to hear from you on what you think after you get this all straightened out.

There are however other reasonable ways to define what "physical" means. For example, you could define it so that anything measurable is considered physical. Another option is to define it so that any concept that's defined by a theory and (according to that same theory) affects the probabilities of the possible results of some experiment is considered physical.

Look, you accuse me of using my definition for the term physical and say that it is the reason for the confusion. Now you are giving your other reasonable ways to define physical. You are doing what you accused me of doing. Fine, at least I can see that according to your understanding of physical. Sounds like you are making a definition of physical to fit your understanding of time.

The hard cold truth is, if anything in this universe is classified as physical it will be composed of a particle or wave. That is it. There is no argument. There is no other option. There is just no way around it, although I have to give you and the others credit for trying to find another way around this stark unwavering fact. All the hem and haw and just plane wiggling around trying to prove your point that time is physical without actually saying how it is physical, is quite interesting to watch.

You do realize that if time were a physical thing then the whole internet would be filled with proof, definitions, references, observations and such, that you would have such overwhelming evidence that my viewpoint on time would be crushed out of existence.

Yet here I stand, still able to bring up legitimate reasonable doubt that time is a physical thing. I am using the fundamental knowledge of physics to raise the question of whether time is physical or not. Physics states that all things considered physical in this universe are either a particle or a wave. Now I just apply that fact to the idea of time being physical and see that according to physics time is not a physical thing. Period.

You may think that I am crazy for not going along with the belief that time is physical, but I deal only in science when it comes to gathering information and understanding of the world around me. Not faith, or information based on what some authority said, or believing some thing because everyone else believes it.

Just the facts man.

The whole subject of a science, as far as anyone is concerned, is as good or bad in direct ratio to their knowledge of it. It is up to a person to find out how precise the tools are.
A person should, before he starts to discuss, criticize or attempt to improve on the data presented to him, find out for himself whether or not the mechanics of the science are as stated and whether or not it does what has been proposed for it.

One should make up his mind about each thing that is taught in the school, or book, the
procedure, techniques and theory. He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data apply to the real world and can it be applied? Does it work? Will it produce results?

There are two ways man ordinarily accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because an authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people, as in the mindset of “I believe it to be true because so many other people believe it to be true.” There is a third way man accepts things and that is by first hand experience of things, this can be done by testing or applying data to the real world to see for yourself or just perceiving things in the real world.






Originally Posted by john 8 
How is it that you can simply and concisely state what time is and yet others who have a good knowledge of physics can not seem to grasp the simplicity of the true nature of time?

Who says that the true nature of time is simple?

It is simple. Time is either a physical thing or it is not. If time is physical then it it composed of a particle or a wave. If it does not fit this criteria, then it is not physical. Simple as that, stop making it so complicated.

People who know physics can tell you how time is defined in the current theories

Alright, so what is the literal definition(s) that these people who know physics use to define time. I know physics, and I have access to many physics books and physics dictionaries. I can tell you how time is defined in current theories, and I can tell you that there is no mention of time being a physical thing.

Where are you getting this false data? You need to think hard at how you came to the conclusion that time is physical. Is it just a belief?

Look, I have been very patient with you and the others on this topic. Just imagine if I continued to assert that some physical phenomena or thing existed despite the fact that it goes against all known physics and all physics references and definitions. You say that time is physical, yet the whole field of physics does not, has not, ever described time as a physical thing. Do you see how absurd this argument is? You continue to ignore the fact that physics has not established time as a physical thing. You my friend are arguing against what has been established in physics and all observational data regarding time.


This discussion has gone on for quite some time. It is now time for you to explain your understanding of how time is physical.

I can only hope that you reveal your understanding and maybe enlighten all of us, and not fall back on that ever so popular form of argument where you just belittle the person that you are having a disagreement with. Let's see what you do.

 

[Sjorris]

This is a poor excuse for not answering a question. My definition of physical is the definition of physical as it is found in a standard dictionary for the English language and for physics.

Stop avoiding answering the question. You say time is physical, so grab your dictionary, Get the correct definition, and tell me how you think time is physical.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical

Option 4.

 

[john 8]

John, the 'physical' you are talking of is not the same as all others in this thread are talking about.

You are using a definition of 'physical' which is synonymous with 'material' (in it's broadest sense, so including photons, muons, waves and whatnot), everyone else is using it meaning 'part of a physical theory'.

A mathematical description of time doesn't make it less true. One could easily restate the mathematical formulations in words (sadly, language is far less suitable for describing physical theories than math) and it wouldn't lose or gain any extra credibility.
Time is a concept which is used in a lot* of physical theories, therefore being physical.
Special relativity, for example, makes it very obvious that you can't describe the universe without the concept of time, therefore time has to be part of the universe, so any physical theory describing the universe has to include the concept of time, which makes time a physical concept..

This may sound like I am being picky, but what do you mean by physical concept? Are you saying that time is just a concept, or a concept that has to do with a real physical thing, (physical being those things that are composed of particles or waves.)?

I've been trying to come up with a more clear definition of what time is, but it's hard without using some kind of self-reference like 'change', distance on the 'time axis', and these are just for the non-relativistic concept of time...

You are not required to come up with “more clear” definitions of anything. The whole of human communication is based on and can only function as a smooth applicable tool if there is an agreement as to how everything is going to be defined. The way it works is that we assign a responsibility to a few people to gather a consensus on what terms are to mean or describe, and from those definitions we are all on the same page so to say when it comes to communicating ideas. For you to try and make a more clear definition of time is to by-pass this whole system of how terms are defined and in doing so you will throw an arbitrary into the understanding of time as it is universally understood at this time.
You only responsibility is to gain an understanding of the definition of a term as it is presented to you in any reference book or dictionary.



With all that being said I would like to thank you for your comment. I can see that you really put forth the effort to straighten this whole matter up. This whole topic on time boils down to if you or anyone thinks that time is a physical thing that exists in this universe and can have an effect on other physical things in this universe.

If all the others are not using my definition of physical, and my definition of physical is defined as something that is: of or relating to material things. of or relating to matter or energy.

Than I would say they are not describing time as a real physical object or phenomena.

This would mean that in actuality since physical as the others are using it to describe time, is not the physical that describes those things that are of matter or energy, then time is not a physical thing that exists as a thing in this universe that can have an effect on other physical things, and cannot do what other physical things can do.

This would rule out time being able to bend, dilate, or combine with other physical things in this physical universe. Time as the others describe it would only exist as a concept that exists only in non-physical form. Time would be only an idea or concept. This view of time is something that I agree with.

Just so that I do not come across as trying to tell you what you meant I will leave this open for you to agree or not with my understanding of what you said.

I guess the only thing that I want to know, and the only thing that pertains to this discussion is, do you think time is physical as defined as: of or pertaining to matter or energy.

 

[john 8]

Originally Posted by john 8
This is a poor excuse for not answering a question. My definition of physical is the definition of physical as it is found in a standard dictionary for the English language and for physics.

Stop avoiding answering the question. You say time is physical, so grab your dictionary, Get the correct definition, and tell me how you think time is physical.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical

Option 4.

Great now we are getting somewhere.

You sent me a link to dictionary. com. You noted option 4. Option 4 is: 4. pertaining to the physical sciences, esp. physics.


There are many things that pertain to the physical sciences, but just because something pertains to a field of knowledge does not prove or disprove the physical reality of a thing.

Is this the only definition of physical that you want to use when saying time is physical.

If so, this definition only tells the reader what physical means as it pertains to a field of knowledge. This definition does not give any evidence that time is a physical thing. It only tells me that the subject of time is part of the study of physics. We already know that.

So tell me how your latest definition has in any way cleared up this discussion that we are having on if time is a physical thing or not. You have now pointed out that time is part of physics, great, but that was already known and I did not have a disagreement with that definition of physical.

Again, I will ask you, is this the only definition that you want to use when stating that time is physical? There are six other definitions of physical, do you want to use any of those?

 

[Sjorris]

You are not required to come up with “more clear” definitions of anything.

Yes, I know, I chose the wrong words, please excuse me since English isn't my primary language. I was not trying to define time, but trying to come up with a reasonable description of what time actually is. Actually, come to think of it, this problem excists for all physical (meaning, as related to the science of physics) quantities, including energy, time, mass and position.

This whole topic on time boils down to if you or anyone thinks that time is a physical thing that exists in this universe and can have an effect on other physical things in this universe.

Obviously not, as was earlier stated, someone who would adopt this statement would clearly be crazy. Only physical (meaning, material) things can interact with physical things, but that does not mean physics is limited to those things. Physical (material) things are actually just a small part of physics, the majority of physics concerns concepts such as energy, mass and time. Energy and mass do not directly interact as material things do, however these quantities seem to show up in every theory independantly, and turn out to be so fundamental to the universe that they can not be left out when one wants to formulate a 'complete' physical (science of physics) theory, and are therefore assumed to be physical (as related to the physics).

This would rule out time being able to bend, dilate, or combine with other physical things in this physical universe. Time as the others describe it would only exist as a concept that exists only in non-physical form. Time would be only an idea or concept. This view of time is something that I agree with.

Just so that I do not come across as trying to tell you what you meant I will leave this open for you to agree or not with my understanding of what you said.

I guess the only thing that I want to know, and the only thing that pertains to this discussion is, do you think time is physical as defined as: of or pertaining to matter or energy.

I do agree that time is non-physical in the meaning of non-material, so I think we agree on that. However, time can 'bend' or 'dilate', but not in the classical sense of the word, this concerning to special relativity, but I assume this is not what you ment.
Time doesn't interact with material things, but it does say HOW material things interact. Einstein showed that 3-space isn't enough to accurately describe the position of any event/particle, and that the missing quantity is time. So, to describe any event you need 4 indepent variables (which are related of course, independent as known in the field of lineair algebra), so reality is four dimensional, with the four dimensions being 3 spatial and 1 time. So yes, time is a dimension (in the mathematical sense).

 

[john 8]

Hey Sjorris!

I was just thinking, you went to all the effort to suggest a link on physical, why haven't you sent me a definition of time? It seems to me that this whole matter could be quickly cleared up if you would just send me a physics definition of time. Why prolong this discussion? Just give me a good standard definition of time. Use anything really.

Go check in all of your books written by Einstein, Richard P. Feynman, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Stephen Hawkings, Michio Kaku, or any other physicist that you have, and check the glossary under the heading of time, spacetime, and tell me what you read.

Any description of how or in what manner time is a physical thing? Go ahead look.

Check the whole internet for the physical nature of time.

Why is it do you suppose that you just did not provide me with a link to some reference that backs up your claim the time is a physical thing? Why no plain good old standard definition of time? Maybe the lack of any definition or reference of time being a physical thing is the proof that indeed time is not the physical thing that you think it is.

Really think hard on this and try to find out why you believe time is more that just a consideration.

There are two ways man ordinarily accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because an authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people, as in the mindset of “I believe it to be true because so many other people believe it to be true.” There is a third way man accepts things and that is by first hand experience of things, this can be done by testing or applying data to the real world to see for yourself or just perceiving things in the real world.


Come on, show me some hard scientific proof that time is a physical thing (physical meaning of or pertaining to particles or waves)

Where is that confounded evidence? Don't think that I have not scoured the internet and many, many science books in search for where science has boldly and definitively stated how time is a physical thing, I have, and the jury is out, time is not a physical thing due to lack of evidence. It will remain as a concept until new evidence to the contrary is found.

The ball is in your court, have fun on your adventure in finding the truth.

I would really like to hear back from you on this.

 

[john 8]

Yes, I know, I chose the wrong words, please excuse me since English isn't my primary language. I was not trying to define time, but trying to come up with a reasonable description of what time actually is. Actually, come to think of it, this problem exists for all physical (meaning, as related to the science of physics) quantities, including energy, time, mass and position.



Obviously not, as was earlier stated, someone who would adopt this statement would clearly be crazy. Only physical (meaning, material) things can interact with physical things, but that does not mean physics is limited to those things. Physical (material) things are actually just a small part of physics, the majority of physics concerns concepts such as energy, mass and time. Energy and mass do not directly interact as material things do, however these quantities seem to show up in every theory independently, and turn out to be so fundamental to the universe that they can not be left out when one wants to formulate a 'complete' physical (science of physics) theory, and are therefore assumed to be physical (as related to the physics).



I do agree that time is non-physical in the meaning of non-material, so I think we agree on that. However, time can 'bend' or 'dilate', but not in the classical sense of the word, this concerning to special relativity, but I assume this is not what you meant.
Time doesn't interact with material things, but it does say HOW material things interact. Einstein showed that 3-space isn't enough to accurately describe the position of any event/particle, and that the missing quantity is time. So, to describe any event you need 4 independent variables (which are related of course, independent as known in the field of linear algebra), so reality is four dimensional, with the four dimensions being 3 spatial and 1 time. So yes, time is a dimension (in the mathematical sense).

You sound like a very down to Earth person who is just trying to understand what it is all about. If I have come across as harsh or impatient with you it is because of all the chatter about time being physical without anyone giving a scientific reference to back up their claim.

I want to help you clear something up. When you say that time can bend, are you saying this because you have personally experienced this or is this what you have been told?

If you think that time bends are you suggesting that a physical bending is occurring? If so, please tell me what is it that is sitting in a location and having force applied to it so that this form is altered. You see for something to bend that means that it has a shape and a location in space. In order to bend this thing a force has to be applied to it in order for the shape to change.

What you need to do is decide if time is a physical thing that is composed of particles or waves. Once you decide that then see how that conclusion fits with the idea that time bends or dilates or whatever else this thing is supposed to do.

Please just take this one step at a time. First and foremost, apply the known facts and laws of physics to the question of if time is a physical thing or not, and then when you have that stable data then proceed to see how the rest of the puzzle fits together.

Do not get confused with what you are being told to believe. Just figure out if time fits the true scientific definition of what it means to be a physical thing. Just that one step will clear up a lot of confusion, just re-examine what you know in a new unit of time and just see if you find time to be a thing that can be bent and all that other stuff.

Is time a physical thing per all standard references and definitions on what a physical thing is?

 

[Sjorris]

I never said time was a physical (material) thing, I thought I, and everyone else in this topic made this awfully clear.

The whole problem arose because you mixed up definitions and failed to acknowledge and/or understand that, mistakingly thinking that our statements were based on your definition of physical, therefore warping them. Basically, you performed ignoratio elenchi or a so-called red herring, which is a logical fallacy.
You continue to do this in your last post, stating that my already warped opinion (which actually isn't my own, you just think it is) about time is formed by one of the two 'bad' ways of accumulating knowledge and then you provide an (valid) argument about a third option. I have never ever read any authorative text concerning time (except for some texts concerning entropy determing the direction of time, but this is unrelated), and everything I posted here concerning time is self-taught.

Also, this forum is not for debating, it's for arguing. Stating a theory and then asking others to disprove doesn't prove your theory, and although it's a valid practice in debates, in arguments it's a bad habbit and frankly quite annoying.

Again, time is NOT a physical (meaning, material) object, it only is a physical (meaning, related to the science of physics), and yes, this is blatantly obvious, and yes, everybody already knows this. Time is a dimension though, to answer your original question.

 

[Sjorris]

You sound like a very down to Earth person who is just trying to understand what it is all about. If I have come across as harsh or impatient with you it is because of all the chatter about time being physical without anyone giving a scientific reference to back up their claim.

I understand, but this has been going on way too long. I won't be posting after this post, since I feel like I addressed the issue more than enough and am now done with it.

I want to help you clear something up. When you say that time can bend, are you saying this because you have personally experienced this or is this what you have been told?

I've never experienced time dilating, however I have enough trust in various authorities concering the subject of special relativity, and have seen more than my share of papers acknowledging time dilating experimentally to be sure enough to accept it as a fact.

If you think that time bends are you suggesting that a physical bending is occurring? If so, please tell me what is it that is sitting in a location and having force applied to it so that this form is altered. You see for something to bend that means that it has a shape and a location in space. In order to bend this thing a force has to be applied to it in order for the shape to change.

What you need to do is decide if time is a physical thing that is composed of particles or waves. Once you decide that then see how that conclusion fits with the idea that time bends or dilates or whatever else this thing is supposed to do.

Again, time is not a material object, so it can't materially bend.

Please just take this one step at a time. First and foremost, apply the known facts and laws of physics to the question of if time is a physical thing or not, and then when you have that stable data then proceed to see how the rest of the puzzle fits together.

Do not get confused with what you are being told to believe. Just figure out if time fits the true scientific definition of what it means to be a physical thing. Just that one step will clear up a lot of confusion, just re-examine what you know in a new unit of time and just see if you find time to be a thing that can be bent and all that other stuff.

Please, don't lecture me, it's unnecessary. Also, I've posted what my definition of physical was, and you failed to integrate this into your posts.
There never was confusion at my end, just on yours. I'm sorry now if I've been harsh, but I felt like pointing out your logical fallacies was the only way to settle this argument.

 

[epkid08]

Was this whole topic based on an argument over an arbitrary definition?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

With all this talk about time needing to be a material thing bending for time dilation to occur, I personally am waiting for john 8 to say "There is no spoon!" and arch his eyebrow dramatically as though he has said something profound.

⚛​

 

[petm1]

Sorry, this crazy person does think that time is physical. I am using the Webster's new world college dictionary fourth edition, and it states that time is a "duration; continuance", it also states that a duration is a "continuance in time" or "the time that a thing continues or lasts". All matter and waves are nothing more than duration, from our visible universe to a muon. Energy appears to me to be a movement of time, which is what can bend and fold making duration separable. We are only physical because we exist in the present, the moving part of our visible universe’s duration.

 

[Alfi]

What a difficult Webster's entry to read.
Time is, "the time that a thing continues or lasts"
Is that called a 'Self referral definition'?

 

[Sjorris]

Was this whole topic based on an argument over an arbitrary definition?

Not quite, but it evolved into it, sadly.

Sorry, this crazy person does think that time is physical. I am using the Webster's new world college dictionary fourth edition, and it states that time is a "duration; continuance", it also states that a duration is a "continuance in time" or "the time that a thing continues or lasts". All matter and waves are nothing more than duration, from our visible universe to a muon. Energy appears to me to be a movement of time, which is what can bend and fold making duration separable. We are only physical because we exist in the present, the moving part of our visible universe’s duration.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? Do you mean that time is physical in the material sense? In my opinion, matter and waves are more than just a duration, and energy is not just a movement of time. In fact, steady states still carry energy, and they're not time dependant, so to me it seems that energy can excist in systems which are invariant under time.

 

[Sjorris]

What a difficult Webster's entry to read.
Time is, "the time that a thing continues or lasts"
Is that called a 'Self referral definition'?

I think that was being said about duration, but duration was defined as duration, so technically it's a self-reference. Languages don't have axioms of some kind though, so you can't reduce all language to a finite set of definitions, so I'm guessing self-reference is inevitable.

Dictionary.com has a huge list of entries concerning time, see here

 

[Fredrik]

You need to think hard at how you came to the conclusion that time is physical.

No, but you need to cut this BS right now. Neither I nor anyone else had claimed that time is physical according to your definition until petm1 did it in #83, so stop claiming that I have.

If you have a question about science, then ask it. If not, I suggest you try to find something better to do than this.

 

[Dale]

I am not trying to construct a working theory of physics without time. You are adding some requirement to this time discussion.

You seem to think that I am trying to deflect the discussion, I am not. You have stated that time is not physical, so if that were true there would be two possibilities:
(1) Time is not physical, but it is essential to any correct theory of physics
(2) Time is not physical, so it is not essential to any correct theory of physics

Since this is a proposition of the form "A" or "not A" either (1) or (2) must be true. Which do you agree with?

If you agree with (1) then this argument is, as Sjorris pointed out, a purely semantic argument about the definition of the word "physical". However, if you agree with (2) then it is up to you to demonstrate that by providing such a theory.

I await your answer. I hope it is (2) because semantic arguments are boring.

 

[ChadRichens]

Let me start by attempting to mediate what's been said so far with a reiteration of the forum rules:

If you choose to post a response, address only the substantive content, constructively, and ignore any personal remarks.

The question this Topic creator intended to have answered was, "is time a 'dimension.'"

My favorite definition of Dimension is as follows:

A magnitude that, independently or in conjunction with other such magnitudes, serves to define the location of an element within a given set, as of a point on a line, an object in a space, or an event in space-time.

For the purposes of defining events in space-time, one of the variables included into the equation is time, which causes it to become a dimension by serving as a property that can be described by a real number and that defines the location of an element within an event in space-time in conjunction with other such properties that can be described by real numbers.

So from the preceding deductions, we can see that time is in fact a dimension, although I believe there is more to answer here, since another topic sprung up in the responses to this one in an attempt to define whether or not it was in fact a dimension.

That topic is: "Is time physical or merely a concept?"

My thoughts on time and what we should define it as:

A consciouss mind uses logic and deductive reasoning to attempt to explain what we observe. Time is a way for our consciousness to explain the changes our senses encounter in every day life.

In this explanation of time, it is merely a concept, and there is nothing physical about it.

In order to define an event in space-time, physicists usually interpret space as being three-dimensional, with time playing the role of a fourth dimension. Does this mean that time actually occupies a fourth dimension, or is it just the way we are able to percieve it? This is the question I think we should answer if we are to discover whether or not time is an entity that is composed of energy and/or matter or if it has any physical properties, and is a question that has multiple fields of study to answer to. We can't simply define time in physics without that definition satisfying all aspects of science or philosophy. Therefore the definition of time is highly controversial.
In my opinion, time is a concept with multiple meanings and applications that is referred to in too many ways by too many different fields of study for a single definition to be able to do it justice.

I apologize for the length of my response. I hope this is thorough enough of a response to get us back on track, and I welcome any constructive, substantive response to which I will do my best to respond promptly.

 

[Naty1]

The Decoding the Universe,2006, Charles Seife takes an information based look at our universe. His approach, examples, and perspectives are often quite different from other authors quoted in this thread.

Among other interesting discussions he says:

Gisin's experiments proved there was a fundamental conflict between quantum mechanics and relativity about the the nature of time... In 2002 he showed that (particle entanglement experiments revealed) the concepts of "before" and "after" don't apply to quantum objects in the simple way they do relativistic ones...Gisen's experiment showed it is impossible (with entangled particles) to show which is the affecter and which is the affector...
This is a ridiculous state of affairs

Absent this strange inconsistency between quantum and relativistic mechanics I would have suggested "time is the flow of information"...but the above renders that incomplete. I had thought it might work because it might even cover black hole interiors (information is hidden, time can be considered as space) and even the initial instant of the big bang.

More traditionally I have seen "Time is a measure of change" which I also like...

Anway, time is as "physical" (or not) as distance or information or entropy...the precise relationship between and constituents of mass, energy, time, space,information, forces,etc is NOT perfectly understood. Which are emergent and which are fundamental is unknown. But we have many useful tools, especially mathematical ones, for making and subsequently confirming/testing predictions...that's all science is.

 

[Alfi]

My favorite definition of Dimension is as follows:


For the purposes of defining events in space-time, one of the variables included into the equation is time, which causes it to become a dimension by serving as a property that can be described by a real number and that defines the location of an element within an event in space-time in conjunction with other such properties that can be described by real numbers.

So from the preceding deductions, we can see that time is in fact a dimension,

I can see where time is defined as a dimension, for the purposes of defining events, but, is it really a cause and effect though?
What is the 'it' ?in, the inclusion of a variable into an equation that causes 'it' to become a dimension?

my reading skills may be impaired this morning. Happy birthday to me. :)

My favorite definition of Dimension is as follows:

or was that tongue in cheek? favorite.

I'm starting to think that science has a gap between the math of time and the perception of time in a conscience being. Same as Quantum has a hard 'time' expanding into the Macro.
The 'now', I perceive, can only be part of me opening the silly box and looking at the cat in real time.

 

[ChadRichens]

What is the 'it' ?in, the inclusion of a variable into an equation that causes 'it' to become a dimension?

For the purposes of defining events in space-time, one of the variables included into the equation is time, which causes it(time) to become a dimension by serving as a property that can be described by a real number and that defines the location of an element within an event in space-time in conjunction with other such properties that can be described by real numbers.

 

[Fredrik]

I'm starting to think that science has a gap between the math of time and the perception of time in a conscience being.

The time perceived is the same as the time measured.

There is always a "gap" between measurements and what corresponds to them in the appropriate mathematical model. A set of postulates (yes, postulates) that tell us how to bridge that gap is a theory of physics.

This is true about all measurable quantities, not just time, and the only connection with consciousness is that a conscious human can be thought of as a really bad clock.

 

[Dale]

This is true about all measurable quantities, not just time

I agree. That is why I mentioned mass earlier in this thread. It is not as easy to define as john 8 thinks, and once you understand mass it makes time easier to understand.

 

[atyy]

The time perceived is the same as the time measured.

There is always a "gap" between measurements and what corresponds to them in the appropriate mathematical model. A set of postulates (yes, postulates) that tell us how to bridge that gap is a theory of physics.

This is true about all measurable quantities, not just time, and the only connection with consciousness is that a conscious human can be thought of as a really bad clock.

Surely time measured by an ideal clock is more like a microscopic quantity, but time perceived is more like a macroscopic effective quantity? Does our perception even resolve time differences of less than 1 ns? I know barn owls can do ~1 micro-second.

 

[Fredrik]

That's why I said humans are really bad clocks.

 

[atyy]

That's why I said humans are really bad clocks.

Just like a proton is a really bad point charge?

 

[atyy]

That's why I said humans are really bad clocks.

How about cases where temporal order becomes ambiguous?

Try the first and second demos here. The physical temporal order of the high and low pitches is the same in both cases - but not the perceptual temporal order.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cmicheyl/demos.html

 

[atyy]

A physical mechanism will be made of electrons, protons and neutrons, physical mechanisms are not made of symbols.

Observational evidence means that it can be seen by our eyes.

Here's an interesting quote from Pauli that seems close to what you're saying. The symbol "gik" is usually cconsidered "spacetime". Although the statement is made in the context of GR, I am reminded that even in SR, it is different "events" (Ludvigsen gives the example of lightning striking a tree) which are primary, and spacetime is constructed by assigning different numbers to different events.

‘The generally covariant formulation of the physical laws acquires a physical content only through the principle of equivalence, in consequence of which gravitation is described solely by the gik and these latter are not given independently from matter, but are themselves determined by field equations. Only for this reason can the gik be described as physical quantities’ (as translated by Giulini, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603087)

But what is matter? Ehlers (in Stamatescu and Seiler, Approaches to Fundamental Physics) says: Here “matter” is used to denote all physical entities besides gαβ, i.e. everything which carries localizable energy and momentum. ... this specification always contains the metric. Matter models studied in some detail include perfect fluids, electromagnetic fields, collisionless particle systems idealized by kinetic theory and, to a lesser extent, elastic bodies. In these cases the system of partial differential equations ... the relevant matter law admits a (locally) well-posed initial value problem.

 

[chiro]

Hi everybody. I just recently joined this forum because I have been reading through the various sections and find it a lot more stimulating than other discussion forums.

I have been thinking about this subject myself and I may have some idea of what john 8 is trying to get at so here's my two cents.

To define time in both a mathematical and a physically measurable sense in a unified form we turn to geometry.

Now I'm not going to repeat the disccussion on general relativity and how time is defined through the change in events because that has already been well discussed. What I will do however is state that given a universal geometry G which contains the set of all events (usually in mathematics we denote it as omega) possible in accordance with global set of processes in the universal system, contains the starting point for which I define time.

Given this geometry G, a time-line is defined as the path taken from an initial event A to a final event B. Any mathematical expression will suffice as long as they unambiguously differentiate one unique time-line from another.

So in this respect time is defined as the distance traversed within the global space-time. This distance is measurable using the same notion of length that is used in normal euclidean geometry (in this case the metric is given by the square root of the sum of the squares).

If one event lies in the global geometry G at a point P and a possible future event lies at point F in the geometry then time is defined purely as the path taken to reach F from P. We can measure this using advanced geometric techniques.

In a multidimensional geometric theory we can use a few tools that we have developed as a result of mathematics. The notion of relative measure (or angular measure) is important as well as the notion of absolute measure (defined from the metric). With angular measure we are defined a form of measure of two points relative to some origin. By using the properties of given geometries and by measuring as accurately as possible the results that are the projection onto our currently perceptible 3-space, we can infer a particular geometry that corresponds to a set of physical processes P and thus through a metric define what we mean by "time".

Now if we build the relation between our universal geometric structure G and a local intuitive
structure (i.e. a local R^3 structure with orthogonal axis) then we can relate distance in
the global structure G to corresponding distance in the intuitive structure. This essentially
establishes a link between "intuitive" time and "universal time". The process I describe is
akin to linking a string theoretic definition of time in multidimensional universe or one of time
in an einsteinian universe to that of a Newtonian universe.

Once the link has been made between the various theories all you need to do is use a geometric physical measuring device (eg a ruler) and a known physical process (such as the behaviour of light) to measure time as time directly correlates to distance.

If I'm wrong I welcome any comments as I have only really just started to learn this kind of thing properly so if I'm wrong I'd welcome a seasoned expert to fix up where an amendment is needed.

I hope this helps.

Matthew