Can time be considered a direct function of movement?

[dasmike1]

Can it be said that time is directly related to movement? That is to say, on a quantum level, if all motion were to cease, would that not bring about the cessation of time?

 

[TJGilb]

I'm not sure how best to put it as to prevent any misconceptions about time travel, but according to Special Relativity time flows differently between two frames of reference depending on their relative velocities. You can calculate these differences using something called a Lorentz boost. Check it out here for the actual equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

 

[dasmike1]

@TJGilb Thank you sir! That was a very interesting read, (although I confess I don't have the math to fully understand a great deal of the article)...It does however elaborate on some of the research reading I've done in relation to velocity and point of view as it relates to the perception of passing time. But it seems to apply on a macro level. I'm still trying to understand the relationship of movement on a quantum level. I may not be asking the correct question here, but here's my reasoning. Since all matter, or antimatter for that matter (no pun intended lol) is apparently composed of subatomic particles, (If I understand it correctly) which in turn are in a state of constant movement, what would happen if ALL subatomic motion in the universe were to cease? Does it not follow that it would put an end to the function of time altogether? The particles would still exist in space, but without motion, would time still pass since the passage of time involves measurement and without motion, you cannot measure?

 

[phinds]

I'm not sure how best to put it as to prevent any misconceptions about time travel, but according to Special Relativity time flows differently between two frames of reference depending on their relative velocities. You can calculate these differences using something called a Lorentz boost. Check it out here for the actual equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

That is a very misleading way of describing differential aging. Time flows at exactly one second per second in every frame of reference, it just LOOKS different from other frames of reference. It CAN have a different number of seconds along two different world lines between two events (see the Twin Paradox) but that's differential aging, not differing rates of time flow.

 

[Dale]

t does however elaborate on some of the research reading I've done in relation to velocity and point of view as it relates to the perception of passing time. But it seems to apply on a macro level. I'm still trying to understand the relationship of movement on a quantum level.

The relationship is the same. The Lorentz transform applies for modern quantum field theory just as it does for macroscopic phenomena

 

[TJGilb]

That is a very misleading way of describing differential aging. Time flows at exactly one second per second in every frame of reference, it just LOOKS different from other frames of reference. It CAN have a different number of seconds along two different world lines between two events (see the Twin Paradox) but that's differential aging, not differing rates of time flow.

Perhaps I worded it poorly. Using Minkowski space-time, taking any path through space-time is given by $ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2$. So the quicker you move through space, the shorter your path through space-time is. Less time has actually passed for that frame of reference, but I can see how saying it "flowed differently" would be confusing and misleading. With "proper time" being $dt^2=-\frac {ds^2} {c^2}$.

 

[TJGilb]

what would happen if ALL subatomic motion in the universe were to cease?

With the caveat that I only have a rudimentary introduction to quantum mechanics at this time, from the way I understand it, that's impossible, and doesn't actually make physical sense. I'm not too comfortable commenting further though. Maybe in a few years when I've gotten further into QM and QFT, but not now. So hopefully someone else can expand on that.

 

[Khashishi]

Time is a direction in spacetime. Objects have "worldlines" which are like noodles in spacetime. If you look at a certain snapshot in time, you are basically looking at a cross section of all the worldlines. For an object that is not moving (relative to a frame of reference), the noodle is oriented parallel to the time direction. So if you look at different snapshots, the object is at the same position. An object that is moving will have a worldline that is slanted or curved.

Objects can stop moving in the space direction, but they always "move" forward in the time direction; that is to say, the world lines for the objects always extend to future time slices (unless the object is destroyed).

With that in mind, we can answer no to your original speculation.

 

[Ostrados]

@Khashishi explained it correctly. Time does not stop even if the object stops movement time will still move forward.

A simple example is an apple that was at rest then released from non zero height, the apple will start falling and accelerating towards the ground, but actually the apple was not pulled by gravity. According to Special Relativity the Earth is bending spacetime, and because time is always moving forward (even at rest) the apple at rest will move through time but in a curved space and thus it will take a curved path in spacetime (vs flat path if there is no gravity) which translates to movement towards the ground.

 

[David Lewis]

Objects can stop moving in the space direction, but they always "move" forward in the time direction

Can you tell me how fast it is moving in that situation?

 

[Dale]

Can you tell me how fast it is moving in that situation?

1 s/s

 

[David Lewis]

The speed is denominated in what units of measure?

 

[Dale]

The speed is denominated in what units of measure?

It is clearly dimensionless. Perhaps you should open your own thread on the topic instead of derailing this one.

 

[A.T.]

According to Special Relativity the Earth is bending spacetime,

General Relativity

... in a curved space and thus it will take a curved path in spacetime (vs flat path if there is no gravity) ...

The free falling apple takes a straight (geodesic) path in distorted space-time

 

[Ostrados]

General RelativityThe free falling apple takes a straight (geodesic) path in distorted space-time

Agree!

My bad I was sleepy when I wrote that post lol.

 

[dasmike1]

"Objects can stop moving in the space direction, but they always "move" forward in the time direction; that is to say, the world lines for the objects always extend to future time slices (unless the object is destroyed)."

With that in mind, we can answer no to your original speculation.[/QUOTE]

Thanks! I love that illustration of the intersecting lines, and it is extremely helpful to visualize time that way, but again it seems to function on a macro level only. For example,If the object in question is at rest,(let's call it Macro-motion wise) it's component matter is never truly at rest on a quantum level, because its atoms continue to perform their various circumlocutions correct?

What would be the consequence of those atomic structures ceasing their various energetic movements? Complete disintegration of the apple on an atomic level?
But even THAT involves motion because to disintegrate, the atomic particles would have to move away from each other, or else the apple would remain in the appearance of an apple...Thus my question is the passage of time a function of motion?

Can it be said that if you somehow managed to stop all motion on a sub-atomic level would time cease to exist?
Put in reverse, at the instant of the "big bang" did "Time" come into existence as a consequence of the motion of expansion? If so, if that expansion were to cease, down to a quantum level would that in effect stop time? Forgive me if I seem obtuse, I'm just trying to wrap my head around an idea that I don't have the math to describe.

 

[Ostrados]

No. Spacetime existence is independent on its matter content.

 

[rootone]

Can it be said that if you somehow managed to stop all motion on a sub-atomic level would time cease to exist?

It can be said, but it doesn't lead to any meaningful conclusion.

 

[dasmike1]

Thanks, Rootone.
@Ostrados, can you cite any published articles that I could read to look into your assertion? The idea that Spacetime is not directly linked to matter and motion seems somehow counter-intuitive...how can one exist without the other? Can you offer an illustration that could help me visualize that a bit clearer?

 

[Ostrados]

Thanks, Rootone.
@Ostrados, can you cite any published articles that I could read to look into your assertion? The idea that Spacetime is not directly linked to matter and motion seems somehow counter-intuitive...how can one exist without the other? Can you offer an illustration that could help me visualize that a bit clearer?

Can space exist without any matter?

Mathematically yes, spacetime can exist without matter:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-does-empty-space-curve.305652/#post-2151333
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prop.2190381002/abstract
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution

But physically the question is open to debate.
Check this:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ime-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-and-energy

If you wish to discuss this topic I think it is better to create separate thread for it.

 

[Dale]

but again it seems to function on a macro level only.

Again, the same set of equations that govern relativity at a macro level also govern relativity on a quantum level. The Lorentz transform applies at both levels.

 

[GRjunkie]

If you could stop all motion in the universe relative to the CMB, including that of light, then yes, you would have a cold dark universe in which time ceased to have any meaning, but it would be completely unobservable. To observe it we would have to introduce motion and therefore time. So at its root I think it is fair to say that time is a derivative of motion, but there is no experiment that could be done to prove this because as stated above the act of attempting to observe the absence of time would in itself create time. On a whimsical note, perhaps that's how our universe began. Lol. Some advanced being wished to observe nothing and in attempting to measure nothing brought forth all of creation.

 

[Dale]

If you could stop all motion in the universe relative to the CMB, including that of light, then

And if invisible pink unicorns frolicked below the center of the Earth and north of the North Pole then ...

 

[dasmike1]

@GRjunkie...THANK YOU! lol ...So now I don't feel so "out there" in contemplating this idea of motion and time being either interrelated or maybe even the same thing, because it appears that EVERYTHING is moving, relative to the universe at large, on a quantum level. So as a result I'm imagining a Primordial Universal Soup wherein all potential matter is at rest on a quantum level, every particle down to it's most reduced component is completely still, (perhaps suspended in Dark Matter? (maybe not matter at all but something other)), insulated from every other particle, motionless, balanced, perfect. A perfect still pool of atomic potential, free of time. Then of course, as follows in such a scenario, something went "Pop!" and the chain reaction continues to this day, like ripples in a pool. Maybe our little universe bubble was like the 8 ball on a cosmic pool table, still and black, until one of the universes already in motion bumped into us and "started the ball rolling" as it were...

 

[dasmike1]

And if invisible pink unicorns frolicked below the center of the Earth and north of the North Pole then ...

Wait...! You KNOW about the UNICORNS?! Curses! And here we've worked so hard to keep them a national secret. DAMN fox news!

 

[dasmike1]

Again, the same set of equations that govern relativity at a macro level also govern relativity on a quantum level. The Lorentz transform applies at both levels.

Thanks for your continued help Dale. I don't disagree...but I'm unclear as to whether the Lorentz equations could be used to decipher whether or not motion and time are inseparably linked. They seem to deal with objects already in motion, and how things work when viewing that motion from different points of view. (As I previously stated, I freely admit that I don't have the math to follow some of the information there, but I try to extrapolate the general point via the context), but It appears that they don't address the idea of time without motion. Which would seem to vindicate the idea that time is indeed inextricably linked to motion...Or maybe I just missed that part...?

 

[Dale]

I'm unclear as to whether the Lorentz equations could be used to decipher whether or not motion and time are inseparably linked.

Yes, they are the equations which relate space and time and motion. They are the equations that describe time dilation and relativity of simultaneity and other motion and time related effects.

They seem to deal with objects already in motion, and how things work when viewing that motion from different points of view.

That is all motion is: a different point of view. You can always transform something in motion to something not in motion simply by a change in point of view. (And vice versa)

It appears that they don't address the idea of time without motion.

Just set v=0 and look at t.

 

[russ_watters]

@GRjunkie...THANK YOU! lol ...So now I don't feel so "out there" in contemplating this idea of motion and time being either interrelated or maybe even the same thing...

Even if it were true that time and motion were interdependent (what I think you really meant...), that wouldn't imply they are the same thing. Indeed, they are clearly not the same thing, since time has units of seconds and speed has units of meters per second. Clearly different things, even though clearly motion is dependent on time because the units of motion contain the units of time. But since the units of time do not contain the units of motion, I don't think it is useful/valid to say time is dependent on motion.

It might be worth considering situations where "motion", in a classical sense, does not exist and see if "time" still matters. Radioactive decay is a good example. There is nothing about radioactive decay that is described using the concept of motion -- but it is well linked to time.

Similarly, you can look at how changes in motion affect time. How about temperature? When you reduce the temperature of an object/substance, you reduce the molecular motion. Does that produce a measurable impact on the passage of time? Do cold radioactive substances decay slower than hot ones? Nope.

I think you are looking for a way to make time make more sense to you by linking it to motion, but I think that is getting in the way of you learning how time really works.

 

[Dale]

@dasmike1 also, the idea of constraining subatomic particle motion to zero is itself problematic. If you mean zero momentum then the uncertainty of the motion is zero so the uncertainty of the position is infinite. Instead, rather than constrain the momentum you might mean that the wave function is stationary. This is something we do experimentally, but time still passes. So there is nothing that the quantum world brings to the discussion.

 

[mic*]

Dasmike1, the idea of stopping all motion violates the uncertainty principle. So you could read stuff on that.

Quantum mechanics stems from the idea that all things may possesses a wavefunction (Read about the De Broglie relation).

The models that best describe subatomic interactions depends on these principles.

To propose a hypothetical scenario that dispenses of, or ignores the founding principles of the best models available to use in answering questions, would therefore require a new model. Science always welcomes new models, if you have a proposal. But it helpful if it adresses a problem rather than a hypothetical.

Is there a problem here you are working on?

 

[Ostrados]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

if there is no motion then there is no matter.

Please provide a peer-reviewed reference to that.

 

[Ostrados]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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

 

[Ostrados]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[Dale]

Several speculative posts have been removed

 

[mic*]

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.