Does Time Really Exist? Debunking Common Beliefs

  • Thread starter Thread starter modmans2ndcoming
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary
The discussion explores the nature of time, questioning whether it is a real entity or merely a tool for relating events. It emphasizes that time is intertwined with space, as demonstrated by theories of relativity, which show that both dimensions are elastic and dependent on the observer's frame of reference. The conversation also posits that if time did not exist, then space would not either, as both are fundamentally linked to change and mass. Additionally, the idea is presented that time could be viewed as a measure of change rather than an independent variable. Ultimately, the dialogue suggests that understanding time is crucial for comprehending the universe's dynamics and evolution.
  • #61
Epsilon Pi said:
Are not time and space decoupled precisely due to that other school of thought initiated by Schrodinger and its well-known complex wave equation?

But this completely misses the point. People say that time and space are coupled because of relativity, but the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic. Space and time are indeed coupled in relativistic QM, and in QFT.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Hmmm, does time exist? Ask me again in five minutes.
 
  • #63
Give me a non-abstract definition of time and I'll tell you if it exists or not.
 
  • #64
time is a measuring tool.
 
  • #65
bino said:
time is a measuring tool.

This thread is not about what humans use as a measuring tool, it is about time itself, or at least that I was what I have been led to believe.

It reminds me of when I posted earlier about humans thinking in measurement time and not real time. :rolleyes:

The Bob (2004 ©)
 
  • #66
An askew paradigm prevailing?

What point does it miss, the one that has been prevailing in a paradigm that is askew, since both QM -as Schrodinger complex wave equation that explains just the behavior of one particle, the electron- and relativity do not talk to each other, as it is said the former is non relativistic?
Are you really sure there is not a framework that including the findings of both, QM, as per Schrodinger, and relativity equations and even others will solve that great schism we have lived in physics since then?
Should not a forum like this open its doors to the evolution of the philosophy of science in this sense, so we can have a physical science that not only talks with itself but with the other sciences as well?
Just some questions about an askew paradigm
Regards
EP

Tom Mattson said:
But this completely misses the point. People say that time and space are coupled because of relativity, but the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic. Space and time are indeed coupled in relativistic QM, and in QFT.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Yes, there is one, and it is precisely the electron, and this fact is expressed in that now infamous Schrodinger wave equation; infamous because it does not have anything to do with the chemistry of nuclear interactions?
Is not a science that forgets its founders definitively lost?

Regards
EP
kurious said:
Epsilon Pi:
At QM levels it is definitively decoupled

Kurious:
If you can find a truly isolated QM system independent of its environment.
 
  • #68
Space is the absolute and time is a third order function with two directions.

There is no universal reference frame, but a reference frame is an abstraction in the first place. What is space?

The idea that space is curved is derived from the assumption that it is only the context for physical properties and can so only be measured in terms of their motion.

Now this motion is measured as a function of such properties traveling a distance and distance constitutes a line segmant, so it is one dimensional. Even our abstract reference frames are three dimensional, so we judge the reality of space on the basis of a component of an abstraction.

Three dimensions start at the x,y,,z point, but it is arbitrary. Geometry never incorporated zero. Consider that 4x0=0, but that 4'x0'=4'. Four feet is four feet, but if you wish to assign it a factor of zero, then it should have consequences.

Assuming the point as the center of a reference frame equals one, what is zero in geometry, other then empty space?

Space is ultimately flat, in that all gravitational collapse and universal expansion balance out, so that Newton’s observation; “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” still holds.

Every curvature of the path of traveling mass exists in a larger equilibrium where the tension of any particular disequilibrium is balanced out. If a two dimensional description of space curves into a gravitational well, it cannot do so from a flat plane, as this would imply a universal reference frame. It must be curving upward in inverse proportion to which gravity curves it downward.

The absolute is not a reference frame. It is equilibrium. In fact, any number of reference frames can be used to define the same space, so our map of space may be three dimensional for intellectually reductionistic convenience, but the actual territory of space is infinitely dimensional.

In fact, science generally accepts this equilibrium, considering such concepts as matter/anti-matter, electromagnetic polarities, etc.

Einstein felt the need to balance his theory of relative space and its effects with a cosmological constant, an idea that has yet to be buried.

It is those physical properties which exist in the equilibrium of space that are the second order.

This mass/energy is neither created or destroyed, but is in motion and constantly changing form, which is called information. As the amount of energy doesn’t change, old information is erased as new information is recorded. This is the process of time.

Information which existed, but no longer does, is the past. Information which has been created and still exists is the present. Information which has yet to be created is the future.

The measure of time is of specific motion against its context. As a measure of relative motion, the context is not an absolute, so it is in motion as well, effectively moving in the opposite direction. To the hands of the clock, everything else is moving counter-clockwise.

Our abstract units of time tend to be sequential, but the real units overlap. A day on the east coast isn’t the same time as a day on the west coast. While we see the sun as moving east to west, the reality is that we are rotating west to east, relative to the sun.

What this means is that while the unit of time goes from beginning to end, the process of time goes toward beginnings, away from endings. As daylight is draining from the east, it is pouring into the west.

This relationship between units and processes is fundamental. Individuals go from birth to death, but the process of life is pouring into the next generation as it is draining from the older generation.

While the products on an assembly line go from intiation to completion, the future for the process isn’t with what is finished, but is to be started. What matters to this process is not so much the finished product, but the energy generated in the form of wages and profits that allow it to continue. Just as food and information passing through you propels you toward gathering more.

Thoughts are the entities to the process of the mind, rising and falling as the mind gathers information and quantitizes it. As we get older, it takes less additional information/energy to form each thought, so time speeds up.

In any relationship, that which is defined is the entity and that doing the defining is the process, so it's the motion of the defined, like the hands of the clock, that we notice.

What comes first, past or future? We see past events proceeding future ones, but the events themselves are first in the future, then in the past.

Two people communicating with each other exist in each others future, but are perceived in their own past. Time is simply a function of subjective reality.
 
  • #69
hmm

I'm still relatively(ha, my first science quip) new to this and I'm not well read so i won't be using any profound quotes but it strikes me that S/T, the first dimension we haven't got the hang of, is just the next step on the ladder that we haven't yet evolved fill. It seems easier for me to get my head around when i picture, absolutely, everything as a liquid of different consistency'...Like the lakes at the bottom of the ocean, there but for the grace of god...And their higher saline content :). What really gets me about time is the fact that it's eternal otherwise it wouldn't exist as it's confined within it's own boundaries. Also if M says that there is 11D super grav. then how/what/where is it contained other than within itself. Maybe some universal fractal code where the actual measurements are irrelevant.
 
  • #70
Time Is

modmans2ndcoming said:
what if time, rather than being a real thing used by the universe was just a tool we used to relate events to each other?

reletivity would still stand, as would quantum physics, because in each theory, time is not a fixed element of the universe but is dependent on the frame of refrence of the person making the observations.

All things are real that may be talked about, because in some way they are sensed. Time may not be something not real because we sense time. All things sensed are in some category of existence.

I'm studying specifically the concept time. Time is the symbolic quantified representation of sensed phenomena. Those symbols represents properties of physical things of the universe.

Time is fixed, otherwise time could not be measured or distinguished with the information speed from viewers at different coordinates.

I found a quote of Leibniz in What Is Time, G.J. Whitrow that hints directly at the principle:

Suppose someone asks why did not God create everything a year sooner and that he wants to infer from this that God has done something for which he could have had no reason for doing it when he did rather than at some other time. This inference would be correct if time existed independently of things. For then there would be no reason why things should exist at certain instants and not others, their succession remaining the same.

This quote also implies that time travel is b.s.
 
  • #71
Epsilon Pi said:
What point does it miss, the one that has been prevailing in a paradigm that is askew, since both QM -as Schrodinger complex wave equation that explains just the behavior of one particle, the electron- and relativity do not talk to each other, as it is said the former is non relativistic?

It misses the point that the coupling of time and space in relativity is a break from the Galilean view of space and time. That Galilean view is built right into the Schrodinger equation.

Are you really sure there is not a framework that including the findings of both, QM, as per Schrodinger, and relativity equations and even others will solve that great schism we have lived in physics since then?

I have no idea of what schism you are talking about, and I don't know why you think I'm sure that there is no unification of QM and SR. As any first year graduate student in physics knows, SR and QM have been unified in the Klein-Gordon and Dirac theories. They are Lorentz invariant, quantum mechanical equations.

Should not a forum like this open its doors to the evolution of the philosophy of science in this sense, so we can have a physical science that not only talks with itself but with the other sciences as well?

I'm at a loss for your meaning here. Physics permeates every science.

Just some questions about an askew paradigm

What "askew paradigm"?
 
  • #72
To reiterate what Tom said, Klein-Gordon may be the most important paper in modern physics. I think it is the best current approach to reconciling the two most successful theories in the history of science. Check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Gordon_equation
 
  • #73
Tom Mattson said:
It misses the point that the coupling of time and space in relativity is a break from the Galilean view of space and time. That Galilean view is built right into the Schrodinger equation.
Does not have the Galilean view has to do with that Newtonian view about an absolute space and time?
If yes, then there is a break with relativity, but how can you say the Galilean view is right into the Schrodinger complex wave equation? Did Galileo use complex numbers to represent the equations of physics? Did Galileo know something about a decoupled version of space and time, as is expressed in the complex Schrodinger wave equation when dealing with the electron?
The great break is really in this concept of time and space as decoupled entities -when dealing with the electron- a conception that was abandoned by physicists in that moment they decided to put relativity, as sort of an absolute conceptual framework of reference. From this moment we certainly have an incommensurability problem as I have pointed out several times in this forum.

Tom Mattson said:
I have no idea of what schism you are talking about, and I don't know why you think I'm sure that there is no unification of QM and SR. As any first year graduate student in physics knows, SR and QM have been unified in the Klein-Gordon and Dirac theories. They are Lorentz invariant, quantum mechanical equations.
What schism? That one that is described by Karl. R. Popper in his book: "Quantum theory and the Schism in Physics",
Of course any theory that pretends to be unified must be Lorentz invariant, but how do you present to your graduate students the fact that QM began with that now infamous SWE? Or do you not teach that equation anymore because it is old QM?

Tom Mattson said:
I'm at a loss for your meaning here. Physics permeates every science.
Yes, physics must permeate every science a reason why we must make philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of the fundamental of time and space, if as scientists we do not want to be in a cocoon.

Tom Mattson said:
What "askew paradigm"?
"Today research in part of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and even art history, all converge to suggest that the traditional paradigm is somehow askew. That failure to fit is also made increasingly apparent by the historical study of science to which most of our attention is necessarily directed" T.S.K.
[/QUOTE]
Regards
EP
PD: A science that forgets its founders is definitively lost.
 
  • #74
A new complex procedure for coping a complex reality?

Normally the problem physicists have had, even Schrodinger, with its complex wave equation, is that:
"the equation doesn't take into account the spin of the electron", right? but also that:
"The Schrödinger equation suffers from not being relativistically covariant, meaning it does not take into account Einstein's special theory of relativity."
But what about if we have, not a TOE, but a complex mathematical procedure, complex in the sense its starting point is sort of basic unit system concept, based on Euler relation, and with which we can deduce not only the complex Schrodinger wave equation, but those equations of the Lorentz transformation group, in a new context that has at the background the complex plane too?... a procedure that taking the magnetic field as the fundamental field represents it too by that same complex basic unit system concept, having in mind that it has a radical duality represented in its inherent polarity that for sure has to do with its "spin" behavior?
Is it not true that with this procedure we do not have to abandon neither the old SWE, nor those equations that represent special relativity? And on the other hand is it not true that with that certitude represented by the inherent magnetic field and its spin behavior included in that complex symbolic representation we overcome those two problems up?
But additionally we have that the equations of gravitational fields: those of normal planets, and planets such as Mercury and its well-known deviation can also be deduced. Furthermore we have under the same conceptual roof the equation of the pendulum and its approximation factor that can be validated with what is observed, and for which T.S.K. wrote:
"How else are we to account for Galileo's discovery that the bob's period is entirely independent of amplitude, a discovery that the normal science stemming from Galileo had to eradicate and that we are quite unable to document today?"
Best regards
EP

Chronos said:
To reiterate what Tom said, Klein-Gordon may be the most important paper in modern physics. I think it is the best current approach to reconciling the two most successful theories in the history of science. Check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Gordon_equation
 
  • #75
since this forum has hit the fan- I maight as well post my luna-tyk ramblings on the issue:

"Time probably does not "flow"[Motion] in the way we think it does- nor does it even exist in the way we think- [it's likely an abstract proprietary mental model of causality- like color is for electromagnetism ] we think we perceive a constant forward arrow of time- but it seems that time passes differently for different objects- affected by motion/mass- but that is just the tip of the iceberg- there is really no convincing evidence that time flows at all!- I wonder if it is more like we "move" in "time"- in an overall "direction"- but that direction may not be the only direction we can move- like the old mathematical allegory of a two dimensional creature moving in the third dimension- he cannot even begin to understand how he moves- he instead perceives himself as stationary- while the world changes- the idea of Time is very complex and unintuitive even in our conceptual models of it- when you try to find "time" you always end up with nothing but phantoms- we believe in "the past"- but where is it? it does not exist "now"- but we believe it "did" exist "then"- what does that mean?- we know that "the future" does not "yet" exist- so the past and future are both non-existent- so that just leaves us with "now"- but what is "now"? it is an elusive wraith- we think it is an infinitely short "simultaneous" moment- but that makes it non-existent as well!- plus we know that our sense of the present is actually a second or more behind whatever is going on outside our brains- whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"
 
  • #76
Yes, you are right time is a very strange concept, but is it not the great flaw of modern physics to have assimilated time to a space dimension?
Must not time and space be included in a mathematical representation that permits both:
- to couple it to space for the sake of application, but additionally
- to decouple it, as is expressed in the Schrodinger wave equation?
Regards
EP

setAI said:
whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"
 
  • #77
Epsilon Pi said:
Does not have the Galilean view has to do with that Newtonian view about an absolute space and time?

It does.

If yes, then there is a break with relativity, but how can you say the Galilean view is right into the Schrodinger complex wave equation? Did Galileo use complex numbers to represent the equations of physics? Did Galileo know something about a decoupled version of space and time, as is expressed in the complex Schrodinger wave equation when dealing with the electron?

The Galilean view of space and time is built into the Schrodinger equation, because it is the quantized version of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is Galilean-covariant. Whether or not Galileo ever used complex numbers is completely irrelevant.

The great break is really in this concept of time and space as decoupled entities -when dealing with the electron- a conception that was abandoned by physicists in that moment they decided to put relativity, as sort of an absolute conceptual framework of reference. From this moment we certainly have an incommensurability problem as I have pointed out several times in this forum.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and Schrodinger, then you are right, for the reason I already explained.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and quantum theory, then you are wrong, for the reason I already explained.

What schism? That one that is described by Karl. R. Popper in his book: "Quantum theory and the Schism in Physics",
Of course any theory that pretends to be unified must be Lorentz invariant, but how do you present to your graduate students the fact that QM began with that now infamous SWE? Or do you not teach that equation anymore because it is old QM?

That's easy: We tell our graduate students that the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic, and that if they want to do quantum mechanics at high energies they must use the relativistic quantum theory. It's really just that simple.

Yes, physics must permeate every science a reason why we must make philosophy, philosophy of science, philosophy of the fundamental of time and space, if as scientists we do not want to be in a cocoon.


"Today research in part of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and even art history, all converge to suggest that the traditional paradigm is somehow askew. That failure to fit is also made increasingly apparent by the historical study of science to which most of our attention is necessarily directed" T.S.K.

But the "schism" you've pointed out simply does not exist. Can you point to a single real problem with the way physics research is being conducted today?

PD: A science that forgets its founders is definitively lost.

I'll remember that if physics ever forgets its founders.
 
  • #78
an incommensurability problem with time and space?

Tom Mattson said:
The Galilean view of space and time is built into the Schrodinger equation, because it is the quantized version of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian. As a result, the Schrodinger equation is Galilean-covariant. Whether or not Galileo ever used complex numbers is completely irrelevant.

If you're saying that there is an incommensurability problem between SR and Schrodinger, then you are right, for the reason I already explained.

That's easy: We tell our graduate students that the Schrodinger equation is nonrelativistic, and that if they want to do quantum mechanics at high energies they must use the relativistic quantum theory. It's really just that simple.

Well. here is precisely where there is an incommensurability problem, as what I have in mind, is not an equation to be or not to be relativistic, but that conception of time and space that is derived from it: in that conception if I am right, you said, time and space are coupled, and this seems to me wrong. How can you expect that physics permeates all other sciences if it has this unsolved problem?

Tom Mattson said:
But the "schism" you've pointed out simply does not exist. Can you point to a single real problem with the way physics research is being conducted today?

The schism is that one that has to do with the conception of time and space that does not allow a "real" decoupled conception of time.
When I say there is an incommensurability problem, it means precisely that as time has been reduced to a space dimension, then there is no chance to have a different conception of time as is expected in non physical sciences such as psychology, linguistics, art history, and even in another conception of physics that includes them both but rationalized in a complex unit, or just in that complex Schrodinger wave equation.
And problems, you really have no problem as you really feel quite well with your coupled conception of time and space, it is us the ones that have the problem.

Regards
EP
 
  • #79
Epsilon Pi said:
Well. here is precisely where there is an incommensurability problem, as what I have in mind, is not an equation to be or not to be relativistic, but that conception of time and space that is derived from it: in that conception if I am right, you said, time and space are coupled, and this seems to me wrong. How can you expect that physics permeates all other sciences if it has this unsolved problem?

I still don't see that you have a point. Time and space are coupled, whether or not it seems wrong to you. And there is no unsolved problem associated with it.

The schism is that one that has to do with the conception of time and space that does not allow a "real" decoupled conception of time.

But time and space aren't decoupled in reality. There is no schism here.

When I say there is an incommensurability problem, it means precisely that as time has been reduced to a space dimension, then there is no chance to have a different conception of time as is expected in non physical sciences such as psychology, linguistics, art history, and even in another conception of physics that includes them both but rationalized in a complex unit, or just in that complex Schrodinger wave equation.

So the incommensurability problem lies with the other sciences, not with physics. It's up to them to conform with what is known about reality, including the coupling of time and space as in relativity. And I don't know why you're still harping on the Schrodinger equation. If you keep looking at SR and Schrodinger's QM, then of course you'll think there's an incommensurability problem in physics. That's because Schrodinger's equation and SR are incommensurable! But as I have repeatedly said, QM has been reformulated by Klein and Gordon, and by Dirac, in such a way that it is commensurable with SR.

It's time for you to update your knowledge of QM, to the year 1926.

And problems, you really have no problem as you really feel quite well with your coupled conception of time and space, it is us the ones that have the problem.

Precisely.
 
  • #80
SETAI:
whatever Time "actually" is- it appears to be so strange that our mind's cannot even generate a consistent model of it-"

Kurious:
Time is just the number of spatial configurations that occur of an ensemble of small masses in one region of space, divided by the number of spatial configurations that occur of another ensemble of the same number of masses in another region of space -
both these numbers of configurations being counted throughout the evolution of a third ensemble from an initial state into a final state.
 
  • #81
a flaw philosophical conception of reality?

Tom Mattson said:
I still don't see that you have a point. Time and space are coupled, whether or not it seems wrong to you. And there is no unsolved problem associated with it.

Time and space are coupled in a philosophical conception derived from special relativity where it is taken as an absolute frame of reference, but why are you so sure there is not another way to present the Lorentz transformation group, in a context not philosophical relativistic?

Tom Mattson said:
But time and space aren't decoupled in reality. There is no schism here.

If you see reality as conceived from the point of view of a relativistic conception, you cannot see the other point of view that even a great influential philosopher as Henry Bergson pointed our clearly and dedicated several assays, I mean, the real conception of time.

Tom Mattson said:
So the incommensurability problem lies with the other sciences, not with physics. It's up to them to conform with what is known about reality, including the coupling of time and space as in relativity. And I don't know why you're still harping on the Schrodinger equation. If you keep looking at SR and Schrodinger's QM, then of course you'll think there's an incommensurability problem in physics. That's because Schrodinger's equation and SR are incommensurable! But as I have repeatedly said, QM has been reformulated by Klein and Gordon, and by Dirac, in such a way that it is commensurable with SR.
It's time for you to update your knowledge of QM, to the year 1926.

The incommensurability problem has to do with that conception of space and time you take for granted and pretend to impose to other sciences as well.
I am really not interested in a science that has been built with so may "patches" trying to conform it to a flaw conception of reality, instead I have tried to see it from a point of view that included that inherent duality of time and space in a concept of complex unit that permitted to see the whole panorama under a same roof, but you really are not interested anymore in such an endeavor, I know how quite difficult it is for you.
Regards
EP




Precisely.
 
  • #82
Epsilon Pi said:
Time and space are coupled in a philosophical conception derived from special relativity where it is taken as an absolute frame of reference, but why are you so sure there is not another way to present the Lorentz transformation group, in a context not philosophical relativistic?

You said it yourself: The philosophical conception is derived from SR. And rightly so, because the Lorentz transformation explicitly couples space and time. In order to present the Lorentz transformation in such a way that space and time are decoupled, you would have to change it so that it is not the Lorentz transformation anymore. This is obvious by inspection.

Have you ever seen the Lorentz transformation?

If you see reality as conceived from the point of view of a relativistic conception, you cannot see the other point of view that even a great influential philosopher as Henry Bergson pointed our clearly and dedicated several assays, I mean, the real conception of time.

I haven't read Bergson, nor do I have his writings on my shelves. Why don't you say what you think instead?

The incommensurability problem has to do with that conception of space and time you take for granted and pretend to impose to other sciences as well.

I don't take it for granted. It comes from an experimentally tested model.

I am really not interested in a science that has been built with so may "patches" trying to conform it to a flaw conception of reality,

But by what standard to you determine whether or not a concepton of reality is flawed? I use experimental evidence. Apparently, you don't. But you can't just impose your preconceived notions of space and time on a scientific theory and reject out of hand those theories that don't conform with it. In formulating a conception of reality, one would think that reality should have a say in the matter! Hence, the primacy of experimental evidence, which is squarely on the side of SR and its implications. You can philosophize until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue with observation.

instead I have tried to see it from a point of view that included that inherent duality of time and space in a concept of complex unit that permitted to see the whole panorama under a same roof, but you really are not interested anymore in such an endeavor, I know how quite difficult it is for you.

But you seem to be doing this from a position of near total ignorance of the relevant scientific knowledge. You keep chanting, "Schrodinger, Schrodinger", when it is quite clearly the case that the inconsistency you keep pointing out comes from comparing a nonrelativistic theory to relativity.
 
  • #83
Tom Mattson said:
You said it yourself: The philosophical conception is derived from SR. And rightly so, because the Lorentz transformation explicitly couples space and time. In order to present the Lorentz transformation in such a way that space and time are decoupled, you would have to change it so that it is noobvious by inspection.
t the Lorentz transformation anymore. This is Have you ever seen the Lorentz transformation?
It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!
Is it not true that one of the greatest achievement due to Einstein was to have shown that Maxwell's equations remained invariant with the Lorentz transformation group?
Did you know that those Maxwell's equations as applied to EE are based on complex numbers or else in another framework?

Tom Mattson said:
I haven't read Bergson, nor do I have his writings on my shelves. Why don't you say what you think instead?
Have I not been saying what I think on this forum? Or do we have a problem with paradigms?

Tom Mattson said:
I don't take it for granted. It comes from an experimentally tested model.
The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically

Tom Mattson said:
But by what standard to you determine whether or not a concepton of reality is flawed? I use experimental evidence. Apparently, you don't. But you can't just impose your preconceived notions of space and time on a scientific theory and reject out of hand those theories that don't conform with it. In formulating a conception of reality, one would think that reality should have a say in the matter! Hence, the primacy of experimental evidence, which is squarely on the side of SR and its implications. You can philosophize until you're blue in the face, but you can't argue with observation.
No, no, you have not really got my point: all those fundamental equations of physics that have been validated with experimental evidence, can be deduced by using a complex unit based on Euler relation that has the remarkable property to remain the same with those processes that represent change: I mean integration and differentiation, a reason why in EE, we work with algebraic equations instead of differential equations. Is not this remarkable property of Euler relation the one claimed by Einstein to represent the covariant laws of nature?

Tom Mattson said:
But you seem to be doing this from a position of near total ignorance of the relevant scientific knowledge. You keep chanting, "Schrodinger, Schrodinger", when it is quite clearly the case that the inconsistency you keep pointing out comes from comparing a nonrelativistic theory to relativity.
No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform. Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity? Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?

My best regards
EP
 
  • #84
Ep,

All tests of space and time necessarily start from the subjective perspective and from that perspective they are connected.
Spacetime is a reference frame for bodies in motion, but space was no universal reference frame, so we insist it doesn't exist except as a reference frame, yet all our reference frames exist within an equilibrium that we take for granted.
Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.
So it has the same problem with understanding time. It only sees the hands of the clock moving, so it proposes an additional inert dimension called time, without properly processing its own insight that all such motion is relative and so that a measure of motion implies a reference frame that is effectively in motion in the opposite direction. As there is no objective frame of reference, the hands of the clock are the centerpoint of their own frame of reference, as well as a point of reference on the face. So that to them, eveerything else is rotating counterclockwise. All of this because of the equilibrium which science overlooks in the first place.

Logic and math are not necessarily synonymous. Without the equilibrium of logic, the reference frame of math has a tendency to start counting angels on the head of a pin.
 
  • #85
Epsilon Pi said:
It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!

You have yet to explain why it is wrong. Have you not read the announcement prohibiting this sort of unscientific speculation?

Is it not true that one of the greatest achievement due to Einstein was to have shown that Maxwell's equations remained invariant with the Lorentz transformation group?

Yes.

Did you know that those Maxwell's equations as applied to EE are based on complex numbers or else in another framework?

I have seen Maxwell's equations written in terms of complex numbers. I have also seen them written as tensor equations.

What is your point?

Have I not been saying what I think on this forum? Or do we have a problem with paradigms?

My remark was in response to your reference to Bergson.

But apart from references to Bergson and Popper, all you have been doing is presenting conjecture and misconceptions.

The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically

First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

And Fourth, it really doesn't matter if a scientific theory matches your philosophical taste. If that be the case, and the theory is consistent with evidence, then it's time to change your philosophy.

No, no, you have not really got my point: all those fundamental equations of physics that have been validated with experimental evidence, can be deduced by using a complex unit based on Euler relation that has the remarkable property to remain the same with those processes that represent change: I mean integration and differentiation, a reason why in EE, we work with algebraic equations instead of differential equations. Is not this remarkable property of Euler relation the one claimed by Einstein to represent the covariant laws of nature?

No, it is not. Einstein did not make use of the Euler identity at all. I have no idea of why you think it's relevant.

No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform.

Relativity is not an "absolute frame of reference".

And yes, all physical laws must conform to it.

Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity?

Because relativity has been borne out by experiment. Schrodinger has too, but we know where its limitations are.

Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?

It doesn't matter if you can find another path to SR. Indeed, more than one derivation of the Lorentz transformation exists. The point is that whichever path you take, it must have as its destination the Lorentz transformation, in which space and time are manifestly coupled. There is simply no way around it.
 
  • #86
One Globe, One Time

tabloid said:
is it possible for humans to start thinking in terms of a global time;a common refrence point,so that we simply start asking each other "what is the time" instead of "what is the time there".i think it could help if we think different and also if we are to determine the motion of celestial bodies and their effects on where we live.

Off the top of my head, that could be made possible by considering time the same upon the entire surface of the globe and using a speed standard as a reference only. We are used to the concept of time being linked with the visible the position of the sun, our daytime. Without this solar link, we can't imagine the sun easily in the sky of our far off friends during communication.
 
  • #87
Epsilon Pi, it is our policy not to allow the kind of unsubstantiated opinions that you have been airing at Physics Forums. I am going to go through your last post and point out to you all the points that need to be proven.

Please answer the points, and do not respond with more conjecture.

If you respond as you have been, I will be compelled to start issuing warnings to you for posting crackpot material at Physics Forums.

Epsilon Pi said:
It is really interesting to see what a wrong paradigm can do!

Prove that it is wrong.

I already asked you by what standard you judge a theory or paradigm to be flawed, but you did not answer.

The Lorentz transformation group yes, but for sure this group can be deduced from a different point of view not necessarely relativistic based on complex numbers, with which duality of time and space is rationalized in a way we can include both:
- a time coupled to space,
- a time decoupled from space, as is required by experimental evidence too such as the case of one electron, but also philosophically

Prove that the Lorentz transformation can be non-relativistic via the use of complex numbers.

Prove that both "time coupled to space" and "time decoupled from space" can be acccomodated by this new Lorentz transformation.

Prove that the notions of "time coupled to space" and "time decoupled from space" are not contradictory.

Give a reference to the experimental evidence "such as the case of one electron" that demands time decoupled from space.

No, the case is not a comparison case, the case is to have taken relativity as an absolute frame of reference to which all physical laws must conform. Why have you been chanting all the time, relativity, relativity? Don't you even think that can be another framework to cope reality?

Present the other framework based on Euler's identity that can "cope reality".
 
  • #88
Well, I am confused. What part of Euler is relevant to this conversation?
 
  • #89
brodix said:
All tests of space and time necessarily start from the subjective perspective and from that perspective they are connected.

The objectivity is contained in the connection itself. That is, while it is readily admitted that we can only see things from our point of view, we can calculate what will be seen from any point of view, via the LT.

Spacetime is a reference frame for bodies in motion, but space was no universal reference frame, so we insist it doesn't exist except as a reference frame,

Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

yet all our reference frames exist within an equilibrium that we take for granted.

That's the second time someone has said that something is taken for granted. Why is it that you and Epsilon Pi think that? Why can you not see that if something is corroborated experimentally, then it is not taken for granted?

Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.

How's that?

So it has the same problem with understanding time. It only sees the hands of the clock moving, so it proposes an additional inert dimension called time, without properly processing its own insight that all such motion is relative and so that a measure of motion implies a reference frame that is effectively in motion in the opposite direction.

I hope you don't think we derive the idea of time from literal rotating clock hands! It can be anything: digital watches, atomic clocks, decaying muons, etc...

As there is no objective frame of reference, the hands of the clock are the centerpoint of their own frame of reference, as well as a point of reference on the face. So that to them, eveerything else is rotating counterclockwise.

That is irrelevant. What matters is that they keep time in our frame of reference. But as I said, there is no need to have literal rotating clock hands.

All of this because of the equilibrium which science overlooks in the first place.

Care to explain, in concrete terms and with evidence?
 
  • #90
Chronos said:
Well, I am confused. What part of Euler is relevant to this conversation?

I'm pretty sure I know what he's trying to get at.

He has correctly noted that the LT is derived from the postulates of SR as applied to Maxwell's equations. But he has also noted that Maxwell's equations can be written as algebraic equations instead of differential equaitons, which means that he's talking about the Fourier transform: that's where Euler would come into it. He's thinking that, since Maxwell's equations can be written in different forms (differential and algebraic) that a "fourier transformed" Lorentz transformation can be derived in which space and time are decoupled.

If that's what he means, then he is wrong, because a Fourier transform leads to the frequency domain, and it is well-known that the quantity kμ=(k,ω) is a 4-vector, which transforms in the exact same way as the quantity xμ=(x,t). So if we look in the frequency domain, we don't lose coupled space and time. Instead we also see coupled wave vectors and frequencies.
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
338
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K