Can time be considered a direct function of movement?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between time and movement, particularly whether time can be considered a direct function of movement at both quantum and macroscopic levels. Participants explore concepts from Special Relativity and quantum mechanics, questioning the implications of motion cessation on the passage of time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if all motion were to cease, it might imply the cessation of time, questioning the fundamental relationship between time and movement.
  • Others argue that according to Special Relativity, time flows differently between frames of reference based on relative velocities, but time itself does not stop.
  • One participant mentions the Lorentz transformation and its application to both macroscopic phenomena and quantum field theory, suggesting a consistent relationship across scales.
  • Another participant clarifies that while objects can stop moving in space, they always move forward in time, indicating that time does not stop even if spatial motion ceases.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of atomic motion on the perception of time, with questions raised about what would happen if atomic structures ceased their movements.
  • Some participants highlight the distinction between differential aging and the flow of time, emphasizing that time is perceived differently but flows uniformly in all frames of reference.
  • One participant suggests that the concept of time may have originated with the expansion of the universe, raising questions about the nature of time in relation to cosmic events like the Big Bang.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between time and motion, with no consensus reached. Some agree that time does not stop with the cessation of movement, while others maintain that the relationship is more complex and may involve deeper implications at the quantum level.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of quantum mechanics and the complexities involved in discussing time and motion, indicating that further exploration and clarification may be needed.

  • #31
You cannot ask about matter without motion in first place, if there is no motion then there is no matter.

At its root, no motion means no electromagnetism which means no matter.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ostrados said:
if there is no motion then there is no matter.

Please provide a peer-reviewed reference to that.
 
  • #33
Vanadium 50 said:
Please provide a peer-reviewed reference to that.
A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...mical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field.pdf

The reasoning:
If all motion in the universe stop then magnetic force will disappear and EM waves will disappear. If EM waves disappear then the photon will not exist anymore. And the electromagnetic force which is carried by photons will disappear too, without electromagnetic force bonds inside the atom will dissolve and we will have no atoms to talk about.
 
  • #34
You are misrepresenting that paper. It does not even mention photons, a concept that was invented 40 years afterward.
 
  • #35
Vanadium 50 said:
You are misrepresenting that paper. It does not even mention photons, a concept that was invented 40 years afterward.

I know! it describes the electromagnetic field, and a photon is a quantization in EM field. In other words EM waves cannot be created without charges in motion.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Ostrados said:
You cannot ask about matter without motion in first place, if there is no motion then there is no matter.

At its root, no motion means no electromagnetism which means no matter.

Ostrados said:
The reasoning:
If all motion in the universe stop then magnetic force will disappear and EM waves will disappear. If EM waves disappear then the photon will not exist anymore. And the electromagnetic force which is carried by photons will disappear too, without electromagnetic force bonds inside the atom will dissolve and we will have no atoms to talk about.

I'm sorry but I don't think that conclusion is valid. I see no basis for your claim and I don't think you've presented any valid arguments or evidence in support of it. Consider that there are matter particles which exist and do not interact via the EM force at all. Also remember that the EM force between charged particles is modeled as being mediated by virtual photons. These virtual photons are NOT present as EM waves and the EM force is not modeled as needing motion to produce it.

Vanadium 50 said:
You are misrepresenting that paper. It does not even mention photons, a concept that was invented 40 years afterward.

Ostrados said:
I know! it describes the electromagnetic field, and a photon is a quantization in EM field. In other words EM waves cannot be created without a charge in motion.

We are aware of how EM waves a created and you are correct that they can be created by a charge in motion. But the can also be created by electron transitions in atoms and molecules, which do not conform to the standard idea of "motion". V50 is correct. That paper does not support your claim that matter cannot exist without motion.

I understand you want to teach people, but please stick to what mainstream science has to say and refrain from personal interpretations and conclusions.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Several speculative posts have been removed
 
  • #38
Ostrados a possible misconception is you paraphrasing Drakkith and substituting "movement of electron" where what was originally said was "transition". It is not just a semanitic difference if you mean to assert classical motion.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
7K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
744
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K