Does Time Really Exist? Debunking Common Beliefs

[Chronos]

chronos,

Then I suppose you can explain why it makes sense to define motion in terms of a frame of reference at rest. The object in motion is its own frame of reference, so wouldn't they both be moving relative to one another?
So far as I can tell, through the many examples I've given, observation is in my favor.

At rest with respect to what? There are no absolute 'rest' frames. All objects are in motion relative to all other objects. The only reference frame they agree on is 'c'. No two observers will ever agree on anything aside from the fact 'c' is constant in both reference frames.

 

[brodix]

Chronos,

Obviously there are no absolute reference frames. That is why I keep making the point that time is not a dimension, but the measure of the relationship between two frames.
As such it is simply a method of measuring a particular aspect of motion, just as temperature is.

 

[Antonio Lao]

As such it is simply a method of measuring a particular aspect of motion, just as temperature is.

Temperature, I think, is the value of a scalar field (no directional property) at a particular point of the field. Charge is the value of a vector field (possesses directional property) at a point. Mass is a value of a scalar field, called the Higgs field. If time is the value of a field, it must be a vector field because of its motion.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

Temperature, I think, is the value of a scalar field (no directional property) at a particular point of the field. Charge is the value of a vector field (possesses directional property) at a point. Mass is a value of a scalar field, called the Higgs field. If time is the value of a field, it must be a vector field because of its motion.

Thank you! Someone willing to consider it as a logical proposition.

Consider that charge is a vector field, yet mass is not. This is because the charge contained within mass exists in equilibrium. There are generally equal amounts of positive and negative charge. So, in this example, a vector field is a component of a scalar field.

Time and temperature are the same. Temperature consists of a lot of atoms moving about, but because any directional motion is canceled out by the general flux, what is being measured is the energy being generated. Time, as the measure of direction, is the specific pushing against context.

Now on the next level, this temperature represents energy that is being radiated and as such is another form of direction, but even this exists in context, as the amount of energy remains the same, so other fields are absorbing what has been radiated. This ties back into my point that units of time go from beginning to end, while the process of time goes on to the next, shedding the old.

Consider that economic statistics, such as GDP, or employment reports, are scalar readings of the energy being generated as individuals move along the paths of their lives, pushing the larger society toward both greater complexity and confusion...building up and breaking down.

regards,

brodix

 

[Antonio Lao]

Consider that economic statistics, such as GDP, or employment reports, are scalar readings of the energy being generated as individuals move along the paths of their lives, pushing the larger society toward both greater complexity and confusion...building up and breaking down.

Definitely, you have a wider conception of time and space. In my case, I am only limiting my understanding to local infinitesimal region of spacetime, when and where the directional property comes into existence and just as quickly ceases its existence. The concept of energy is free of any directional property. It's more like chaos (random process). But still, I believe that order can emerge from chaos. But how long this process takes is another story.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

when and where the directional property comes into existence and just as quickly ceases its existence. The concept of energy is free of any directional property. It's more like chaos (random process). But still, I believe that order can emerge from chaos. But how long this process takes is another story.

Something to consider is Complexity Theory. It examines and contextualizes the top down direction of order and the bottom up processes of growth and how they compliment each other. Order defines energy/chaos and the energy/chaos motivates order. This relationship is actually what we think of as time, in that which we think of as past is what has been ordered and the future is the energy that will determine what survives and what vanishes. The present is the complex phase transition.
I first studied Complexity Theory as I was developing this understanding of how time has two directions and they are different expositions of the same process. The direction of the unit, that goes from beginning to end is that of order defining energy and when it reaches the stage of maximum definition, it amounts to a closed set and is subject to entropy/diminishing returns. Meanwhile the energy it has been shedding, radiates out and goes on to other structures that are still absorbing energy, thus the process is continually going on to other units of time. The relationship I'm developing here is that the unit of time is the material entity, as it forms out of interstellar gases and radiation, coalesces into ever more dense matter and as this gravitational process continues, starts radiating out more and more energy, until it grows big enough to ignite as a star and radiates out more energy then it is absorbing. There are levels of this, all the way up to galaxy cores. The energy radiates out till it has cooled to the point of condensing back out as hydrogen and other basic forms of mass. So what we have is a convective cycle of collapsing mass and expanding energy.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I first studied Complexity Theory as I was developing this understanding of how time has two directions and they are different expositions of the same process.

In the early 90's, i was actively investigating theory of complexity as endorsed by the Santa Fe Institute of which Murray Gell-Mann was a member and maybe he still is. I lose touch with the activities of this institute for a while. I wonder what are their latest findings on the science complexity?

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

It had originally grown out of seminars put together by John Reed, at the time president of Citicorp(now temporary head of the NYstock exchange) in trying to understand the economic forces which caused his bank to loose so much money in South America. As such, it has always had a very strong business focus and was much of the basis for the new paradigm of horizonal management that swept the economy in the 90's. Other then that, most of what was coming out was a lot of dense studies of the economy and other areas, which were high on details, but didn't add all that much in insight.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

What if there are additionaled curled dimensions of time?

 

[Antonio Lao]

...in trying to understand the economic forces...

quoting from page 38 of M. Mitchell Waldrop's book Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of order and Chaos, of Brian Arthur's manifesto for a whole new kind of economics, that "It was a vision much like that of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who observed that you can never step into the same river twice. In Arthur's new economics, the economic world would be part of the human world. It would always be the same, but it would never be the same. It would be fluid, ever-changing, and alive."

 

[Antonio Lao]

What if there are additionaled curled dimensions of time?

Do you think that when the time dimension is curled up, its directional property vanishes? In other words, time stands still. It has no motion not even constant motion of any kind.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

Of the various books I read on the subject, Waldrop's was the best written and most insightful of the basic issues.
Arthur's insight was that the classic top down economic ordering was politically convenient, but to the extent it stifled bottom up growth in favor of contol, was economically destructive.

I've had two copies of that book and gave them both away. That's the way it is. I only have the books I didn't think enough of to give away.

Tom,

Can you explain that?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Tom,

I invited Waldrop to give a short talk about the science of complexity at the think tank company I used to work at Crystal City in Arlington, VA, close to the Pentagon, and he accepted. Twenty or more people (including military officers) attended but I don't know how many have benefited from his talk. I for one still trying to find the math aspect of complexity. Can the whole theory of complexity be formulated into math equations? What would be the variables? Could time be an indispensable variable?

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

What is math? It is a process of ordering. Think of how you are trying to use it. To create a formula to explain a process that is inherently not reducible. Thus the best we can do are statistics. Consider your audience and their needs. Consider the situation the military finds itself in today. They are not independent operators, but are responsible for maintaining civil order in the most basic fashion.
Order is the concrete, growth is the grass pushing up through it.
I don't know whether you've followed my argument, so I'll review it;
Think of a factory; The product goes from initiation to completion, but the production line points in the other direction. Its future is in the start and the finished product is past.
The unit of time, a day, or the life of an object, goes from beginning to end, birth to death but the process is going on to the next unit, just as the species goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin.

Further expositions are scattered about the discussion.
This model is basic to reality. Consider; The Republic is an political unit; Top down order. Democracy is a political process; Bottom up...process.
Are those officers interested in defending the entity, or dealing with process?
The problem for that perspective is that the unit ceases to grow when it stops absorbing fresh energy and becomes a closed set, subject to entropy. Then it relies on its shell to maintain integrity for as long as possible. That is why the old America grew, whatever its mistakes, while the post 9/11 America has started to shrink.
The process has no defenders, only the unit and those seeking to replace it with the next unit that fight. Those who are basic to the process power through whatever form is taken. Those who turn the other cheek.
Jesus' symbol wasn't the cross, but the fish. That is because he lived at the dawn of the age of Pisces. As we live at the dawn of the age of Aquarius. Units of time in the process. The cross is the symbol of the institution which grew up in his shadow. A unit.


Truth is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers seek truths. Priests and politicians provide answers. That's why there are more priests and politicians then philosophers.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Truth is. Answers are what people will pay to hear. Philosophers seek truths. Priests and politicians provide answers. That's why there are more priests and politicians then philosophers.

How about scientists? Or physicists in particular? They are also seeking the truth. The answers the politicians and priests provided are in the forms of promises while the physicists' answers are real results from experiments (these results led to the advancement of technologies). But i still need to see a physical equation that does not have time as an independent variable. My hunch is that square of energy can be formulated without time as a variable.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

Anything you measure is going to have time as a variable, just as it will have temperature...except for...0...but then you have quantum fluctuation...matter/anti-matter...

Priests and politicians provide answers as real as the questions. It is just that scientists have more precise questions.

 

[Antonio Lao]

just as it will have temperature...except for...0

Learning from thermodynamics, temperature is just a measure of an average kinetic energy of particles in an isolated system (no transfer of mass or energy, in or out).
Still this isolated system can have local changes of its functions of state. But time is not explicitly a variable of the energy function. In fact, the energy function is independent of time hence the law of energy conservation as an invariance or time symmetry according to Noether's theorem.

 

[Antonio Lao]

From Maxwell's relations, temperature (T) can be explicitly defined as the partial derivative of energy (E) with respect to entropy (S) at constant volume (V).

T = \left( \frac{\partial E}{\partial S} \right)_V

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

I didn't say time is a measure of energy, a clock and the rotation of the Earth can record the same time, but one entails more energy.

It is a measure of the rate of motion of two frames relative to each other.

At zero, you have no energy and no motion.

The question is whether there can be a situation in which time isn't a factor.

If you were to have only one frame, there wouldn't be any way to measure time, but then there would be no way to define the frame either. It could be infinite or imaginary. So it wouldn't have any parameters and there would be no way to define it as one. It would effectively be absolute and thus zero.

The reason time has two directions, as both frames must be moving, like the product and the production line, is conservation of energy; "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

 

[Antonio Lao]

brodix,

At temperature of absolute zero, there still exists zero-point energy. Motion is then localized and ruled by the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Only one direction of time is defined. I agree with you that time has two distinct (quantized) directions. But in order to incorporate this other direction, we must take the square of energy. And the double integral of the square of energy with respect to two time's directions gives a double actions integral.

A^2 = \int \int E^2 dt dt

This, by coincidence, is just the square of Planck's constant, h.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

If it isn't evident by now, I'll point out that I'm not a mathematician, but am just trying to comprehend reality. That said, personally I'd have ask what isn't zero point energy, in that everything is supposedly matter and anti-matter. Which returns me to the point; Zero is zero. Yes, it is nothing, but nothing as a state of equilibrium, thus which contains all of reality. The absolute as infinite.

I do realize measuring time requires an energy component, but in terms of relativity. If you change one field, without changing the other, the measure of time is changed.

I have been occasionally asked if I could put the concept of time having two directions into an equation. Do you have any ideas?

 

[Antonio Lao]

brodix,

For two directions of time, the double actions is given by the previous integral equation.
For three directions of time, the triple actions is given by the following:

A^3=\int\int\int E^3 dtdtdt \geq h^3

For n directions of time, the n actions is given by

A^{n}=\int_1 ... \int_{n} E^{n} dt_1 ...dt_{n} \geq h^{n}

 

[Antonio Lao]

Furthermore, the exponent of the action can indicate whether the action is the configuration of matter (fermions) or energy (bosons). Odd exponent is for fermions, matter-particles; even exponent is for bosons force-particles, energy waves and radiations.

 

[LeBrok]

Can you gentleman, explain this.

We have an empty space (no reference points). In this space we have to clocks side by side at rest to each other. Now one clock accelerates from the other. How will they show time relatively to each other. Is one ticking faster than the other or are they ticking the same as they move away from each other with same velocity, as relativity dictates?
Well, I’m a bit lost here.

PS. Great discussion on this board. Time/space a very intriguing subject. Hopefully somebody is going to figure it out before my time runs out, hehe.

 

[brodix]

Antonio,

My brain just doesn't think in equations, just like it can't think in languages other then english. And the visual. And occasionally the emotional.

LeBrok,

The question is whether there is any other frame of reference. As you propose that there isn't, then they tick at the same rate. The situation is that the presumption exists of an absolute framework, by which the reality of both clocks can be determined, but the absolute isn't a framework, it is an equilibrium and with only two points of reference, then the equilibrium is between those two points. If there are more reference points, then the larger frame starts to develop, but it is only an absolute as a whole. This means that if you isolate any point, then the rest of the frame is relative to that point. In other words, like your two clocks, if you move one, it is only in relation to the other. So in this sense, one point is one clock and everything else is the other clock. So there is no absolute frame in which motion occurs, because any motion affects this frame.

 

[LeBrok]

Thanks brodix for responding.
I did some thinking about what you said about employing an idea of the frame for these two clocks situation. Then I run into problems with that. One is that if just only one of them were accelerating they both would approach the speed of light at the same time. If one of them gets to the speed of light (to visualize the extreme situation) they would both stop ticking at exactly same time? Other problem comes from the first one. To keep this synchronized time they have to communicate with each other. One knows what the other is doing and they do that much faster that the speed of light.
I just fought of the third problem. If you accelerate each of them in opposite direction to 51% of speed of light each, which is physically possible, in this frame of two clocks they would fly faster than the speed of light.

On the other hand if I go with the notion that one clock will tick faster than the other in this two clocks scenario, then I come to the conclusion that the space itself must be the reference for the clocks. And this goes against SR theory.
Hmmm
I’m stuck again.

 

[brodix]

LeBrok,

The problem is that all of space has matter and energy, so it does effectively form something close to an absolute frame of reference, unless of course you believe in the Big Bang theory, but we have currently found mature galaxies and enormous galaxy structures at the very edge of the visible universe, which is the point I'd assumed that the scientific establishment would have to start questioning it, but the penchant for institutional kool-aid is strong.
The reason time slows at the speed of light is because complex atomic structure has electrons flying around the nucleus of atoms at close to the speed of light, so you cannot accelerate matter past the point where internal and external speeds exceed the speed of light, so that the faster an object moves, the slower itss internal processes function. The reality is that if you did accelerate it to the speed of light, it would be light and have no moving internal structure. As it is, light leaves light sources in opposite directions at the cummulative speed of, obviously, double the speed of light.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Rationalization of duality

Mr Mattson and everyone interested,

As you made so serious claims in this post, I am presenting here the second paper of four:

The Schrodinger's wave equation and the rationalization of duality.

http://www.geocities.com/paterninaedgar/QM.pdf

In this paper the SWE is presented not as a postulate but under the concept of the basic unit system.

Abstract. In this second paper of four the Schrodinger's wave equation is presented under the concept of the basic unit system. Again it is too, a result and a promise, because of those dialogues in Physics Forum in its TD sub forum. By using complex numbers we find that the duality of time and space cannot be dropped out just by taking the square of a complex equation as in this way we drop out not just one part of that complex equation but, we do not rationalize duality of time and space, of wave-particle, anymore.
Comments: equations included.

There you will find why I do not consider the Klein and Gordon's equation a consistent solution to the problem of duality of time and space, wave-particle.

In my next paper I will present a non relativistic point of view of the Lorentz Transformation Group by using the same basic unit system concept.

My best regards
EP

But you have to make good philosophy to make good science. That means you have to provide arguments and evidence for your position, which you have consistently failed to do.
Are you saying that it is a mistake not to use an "included middle" in our logic?



Wrong. It is possible to start from the Lorentz transformation and recover Einstein's 2 postulates from them. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformations explicitly encode the coupling of space and time. In fact, it is the interdependence of spatial and temporal parameters in the Lorentz transformation that physicists define as the coupling of space and time. As I said before, if you change the LT in such a way that space and time are decoupled, then it won't be the LT anymore.

But since you won't even look at the Lorentz transformations, it is hopeless to try to convince you on this. All I can do is correct you.



Duality between which two concepts, exactly?



Again, what is "the third"?



Since you have not said what those two orders of reality are, or how the Euler relation can be used to separate them, this makes absolutely no sense.



So that means you are not going to present it?

This is a cheap cop-out that is typical of crackpots who cannot defend their position.



It seems clear that you are saying that "the third" is "the included middle", but without your explicitly saying so I am not going to assume it. I will point out, however, that using an included middle reasoning system is hopeless because if the compound statement (P and ~P) is true, then it is possible to prove any statement "true", whether it is true or not.

Surely it should not be thought that this is good philosophy.



The Euler relation does not "represent the covariant laws of nature". Tensor equations do that.



You just don't get it. "We" don't couple time to space for any applications! Space and time are coupled, and "we" are powerless to do anything about it. The coupling of space and time as exhibited explicitly in the Lorentz transformations is a derived result of the 2 postulates of relativity, which are also features of our universe. And there is no analog between the coupling of time and space in SR and the unertainty principle in QM. Both are derived independently of the other, and the two do not have any formal similarity.



Of course it does. In this thread, all you have done is deny that time and space are coupled because it seems wrong to you. You don't have a single argument, or a single piece of experimental evidence to support your position. If there were ever a more clear cut instance of someone rejecting a scientific theory because it does not sit well with his philosophical taste, then I have not seen it.



This is just another cheap cop-out. You have not presented a "different way to cope reality", so how could I be expected to comment on it?

In any case, I would say that the mathematical description of the universe is not subject to such a rash rewriting as you would have us do. You are simply wrong to think that both a statement and its negation can both be descriptive of our universe.

I'll note here that you have referred to complementarity, and I suspect that this is a veiled reference to quantum logic. If so, then note that that will not rescue your position against the excluded middle (if that is indeed your position) because multiple-valued logics (such as those that can accommodate complementarity) can still have an excluded middle.




You never presented an argument. All you said was that it is a mistake not to use "the third". You did not say why, nor did you even say what "the third" is.



Yes. Einstein opened his 1905 paper by noting the experimental failure of Galilean relativity as applied to Maxwell's equations.

See On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.



You thought wrong. Einstein derived the LT from 2 postulates: one physical, one mathematical. There's no metaphysics involved here.



They are. But the postulates also permit such validation.

See The Experimental Basis for Special Relativity.



Wrong. As previously noted, time and space are manifestly linked via the Lorentz transformation. This is the definition of the concept of the coupling of time and space.



You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. The coupling of time and space as in the Lorentz transformation fits perfectly well with the uncertainty principle. I have repeatedly referred you to Klein-Gordon and to Dirac. But I'm convinced that you haven't investigated it, so this is hopeless.



You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.



I wish I could say the same. You did exactly what I asked you not to do: present unsubstantiated opinions with no proof or evidence.



You can attach a file to a post, or you can simply write it in a post.

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

there is time

For a week I'm thinking about what's time. I have an idea that looks good to me so I decided to share with ppl. looking for the answer . What do you think? Here it goes. (can't explain it better, english is my second language)


Imagine there is no time… It’s tough if not impossible. At least you could imagine the room or other place without the movement.

at its simplest term, time is nothing more than the relation of two separate events. if there was no relation between events, then one could not reliably predict what will be next and that will make life impossible since life is based on predictable events.

 

[Antonio Lao]

My brain just doesn't think in equations, just like it can't think in languages other then english. And the visual. And occasionally the emotional.

The integral symbol \int over time means that time can be added. 1 second + 1 second = 2 seconds. The unit of the time's quantum is 1. But if the time's quantum is 0, adding a bunch of quanta of "zero," the sum is still "zero." Hence by zero quantum of time, time does not exist. But if the time quantum is very small such as Planck time, then adding a lot of them gives a finite value of time. This logically seems to indicate that time zero does not exist. If time zero does not exist then there must be some kind of local infinitesimal motion for the existence of Planck time of 10^{-43} sec.

Note: Temperatures (density and maybe mass) cannot be added since they are point values of a scalar field. But the point values of a vector field can be added together.