Is time really a dimension and why is it associated with relativity?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings heusdens !

I was reffering to modern mathematical insights
about the Universe like Chaos which appear
to show symmetry "breaking" in the Universe.
Also, physics currently theorizes that at least the
3 out of 4 basic forces were actualy one and the same
before the Universe "cooled down" below certain
tempratures - this is also an exampleof symmetry "breaking".

Yes, I have read about that, but what has the breaking of symmetry, and splitting apart of individual forces to do with entropy?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
Local was meant as at least as big as the observable universe. But the nuclear fusion processes in stars and the expanding universe to me don't mean the universe is running down on entropy.

. . . what has the breaking of symmetry, and splitting apart of individual forces to do with entropy?

Part of the problem here is I don't think you have a good understanding of entropy. Just think of it as increasing disorder. Nuclear fusion, for instance, may create helium but it is at the expense of the order of even more hydrogen atoms. The breaking of symmetry is an obvious decline of order.

If you would like read a user-friendly explanation try P.W. Atkins The 2nd Law - Energy, Chaos, and Form. You can get used at Amazon pretty cheap.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Part of the problem here is I don't think you have a good understanding of entropy. Just think of it as increasing disorder. Nuclear fusion, for instance, may create helium but it is at the expense of the order of even more hydrogen atoms. The breaking of symmetry is an obvious decline of order.

If you would like read a user-friendly explanation try P.W. Atkins The 2nd Law - Energy, Chaos, and Form. You can get used at Amazon pretty cheap.

How do you want to measure the amount of order/disorder (entropy) in the early universe? Before there was any ordinary matter (during inflation)? At what rate is it running down now?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
How do you want to measure the amount of order/disorder (entropy) in the early universe? Before there was any ordinary matter (during inflation)? At what rate is it running down now?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I admit I am an amateur doing my best to keep up with the advances of science. I do know that entropy is a well-established principle and as far as I know unchallenged by any science professional.

My point, however is simple. It is that time is a measure of the universe's rate of disorder.

 

[Fliption]

Good Lord. Semantics everywhere.

Drag,

For the most part this thread has been dealing with semantic issues around materialism. I don't think they want that conversation in the Theoretical physics forum. However it has entered into science territory with the entropy discussion. I'll see if I can head that one off below.

Others,

I have read a lot about the idea of time being the result of entropy. Even though Relativity doesn't say one way or the other which direction time should run, it always seems to run in only one direction. Much like the order of the universe.

I remember someone on PF2 posting a link to a very interesting site that was arguing that entropy is not the movement of order to disorder. The author was arguing that entropy was movement from Group Order to Symmetric order. The author was arguing that what scientists are now calling disorder is really just another form of order. Entropy is just the movement from one form of order to another. He claimed this and then went on to show how useful this new understanding is in explaining the nature of the universe. Whether this is accurate or not remains to be seen.

But regardless of what we call the end result of entropy, it doesn't effect the idea that entropy may result in time and that this form of change would not exists in LW's preceding period of potentiality. Maybe this could be a topic for another thread?

LW,

In light of the symmetry issue above, wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that time is the rate of the entropic process? As opposed to disorder? I'm just not sure the word we use to describe the end result of entropy is all that relevant to your hypothesis.

Also, what would you say is the nature of this immaterial potential? Does this question even make sense to ask?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Others,

I have read a lot about the idea of time being the result of entropy. Even though Relativity doesn't say one way or the other which direction time should run, it always seems to run in only one direction. Much like the order of the universe.

I remember someone on PF2 posting a link to a very interesting site that was arguing that entropy is not the movement of order to disorder. The author was arguing that entropy was movement from Group Order to Symmetric order. The author was arguing that what scientists are now calling disorder is really just another form of order. Entropy is just the movement from one form of order to another. He claimed this and then went on to show how useful this new understanding is in explaining the nature of the universe. Whether this is accurate or not remains to be seen.

But regardless of what we call the end result of entropy, it doesn't effect the idea that entropy may result in time and that this form of change would not exists in LW's preceding period of potentiality. Maybe this could be a topic for another thread?

Perhaps you mean this link?

"www.everythingforever.com"[/URL]

It contains some interesting ideas, but I am not sure weather they are anyway valid viewpoints.

[quote][b]
LW,

In light of the symmetry issue above, wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that time is the rate of the entropic process? As opposed to disorder? I'm just not sure the word we use to describe the end result of entropy is all that relevant to your hypothesis.

Also, what would you say is the nature of this immaterial potential? Does this question even make sense to ask? [/B][/QUOTE]

As opposed to this, I would argue that time and the rate of change from order to disorder can not be the same thing. Time must be different from change and independend from it, else we could not measure the rate of change.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If the views of other people are the bricks which formulate your own views, then you haven't helped yourself in the slightest.

This is incorrect. If the views of other people help you build your own viewpoints, than you have helped yourself; you've helped yourself form your opinions.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Also, what would you say is the nature of this immaterial potential? Does this question even make sense to ask?

I suggested another intrinsically material explenation for this potential, that serves the same purpose in explaining the causes for a big bang in the form of chaotic / eternal / open inflation which comes about a scalar field (Higgs field or other field).

 

[Mentat]

The "Dictionary of Philosophy" includes GR and SR as philosophies. They may be scientific theories, but they have great philosophical ramifications. This thread definitely belongs here.

 

[Mentat]

What people here don't seem to realize is that "energy" = force of motion. This means that even "potential" is energy. And, since matter is congealed energy, LW Sleeth's idea is logical.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Perhaps you mean this link?

"www.everythingforever.com"[/URL]

It contains some interesting ideas, but I am not sure weather they are anyway valid viewpoints.
[/quote]

Yes, that's the link. I wondered if it was you who provided it. You're right, it may not be valid at all. My only point was that there is room to debate(as this link shows) what we call the end result of entropy but I don't think we need to bog this thread down with it.

[quote]
As opposed to this, I would argue that time and the rate of change from order to disorder can not be the same thing. Time must be different from change and independend from it, else we could not measure the rate of change. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't understand this at all. I don't know if I agree or disagree because I don't know what it means.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption In light of the symmetry issue above, wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that time is the rate of the entropic process? As opposed to disorder?

To say "entropic process" is fine with me.

Originally posted by Fliption Also, what would you say is the nature of this immaterial potential? Does this question even make sense to ask? [/B]

I did take a shot at modelling it in my original post for this thread relying on inference from universally-present traits in creation.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes, that's the link. I wondered if it was you who provided it. You're right, it may not be valid at all. My only point was that there is room to debate(as this link shows) what we call the end result of entropy but I don't think we need to bog this thread down with it.

I provided the link yep.

Of course there is room to debate, which is a way of trying to understand one own's thoughts and that of others.

I don't understand this at all. I don't know if I agree or disagree because I don't know what it means.

cite from Anti-Duhring (Friedrich Engels, 1877)

Just because time is different from change, is independent of it, it is possible to measure it by change, for measuring always requires something different from the thing to be measured. And time in which no recognisable changes occur is very far removed from not being time; it is rather pure time, unaffected by any foreign admixtures, that is, real time, time as such. In fact, if we want to grasp the idea of time in all its purity, divorced from all alien and extraneous admixtures, we are compelled to put aside, as not being relevant here, all the various events which occur simultaneously or one after another in time, and in this way to form the idea of a time in which nothing happens. In doing this, therefore, we have not let the concept of time be submerged in the general idea of being, but have thereby for the first time arrived at the pure concept of time.


So, measuring the rate of change of entropy, requires something essentially different from the change of entropy, in other words if - as you claim - time and change of entropy are the same, then we could not measure it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
I would argue that time and the rate of change from order to disorder can not be the same thing. Time must be different from change and independend from it, else we could not measure the rate of change.

I didn't mean they were the same thing. I am saying that "time" is a way we've devised to keep track of the rate of entropy. Time itself is an arbitrary concept invented by humans. It doesn't really exist. What does exist is "rate of entropy." We can choose to track that or not . . . we've decided to track it.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I didn't mean they were the same thing. I am saying that "time" is a way we've devised to keep track of the rate of entropy. Time itself is an arbitrary concept invented by humans. It doesn't really exist. What does exist is "rate of entropy." We can choose to track that or not . . . we've decided to track it

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First, you define time as the rate of entropy(which is true) and then at the same time you insist it doesn't exist. The rate of entropy=time.
As for your first post on this thread, I would say that you are right; there is no such a thing as a perfect vacuum(or nothing, as you put it). In QM, negative energy exists when there is no positive energy (which is what we're used to, while negative energy is...i guess you could say more of a metaphysical aspect) just like in a vacuum. anyhow, you get my point.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First, you define time as the rate of entropy (which is true) and then at the same time you insist it doesn't exist. The rate of entropy=time.

I see what you mean. By saying time doesn't exist I only meant it seems to be a scale we've chosen somewhat arbitraily (orbital pace). Possibly our orbital cycle really is related to the rate of entropy; maybe the pace of orbiting, as movement, reflects a universal entropy rate. On the other hand, maybe we chose it for no other reason than it is relatively constant, and so we can adjust our clock pace to that. To tell the truth, I haven't been able to figure out any absolute reason why clocks should move at the pace they do. I would be very interested in any insights anyone has on this.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
However, I do say the following is irrefutable: no thing can exist in time which is not preceded by the potential for it to exist. Can you dispute that?

Can you prove it ?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, I have read about that, but what has the breaking of symmetry, and splitting apart of individual forces to do with entropy?

I never went "into" the entropy part.
I was simply responding to your demonstration
about what you called - a possibility of symmetry
increase in our "local" part of the Universe.

Originally posted by heusdens
Drag,

For the most part this thread has been dealing with semantic issues around materialism.

A "modern" materialism.
Semantics - is just another word for philosophical
technicalities then...

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see what you mean. By saying time doesn't exist I only meant it seems to be a scale we've chosen somewhat arbitraily (orbital pace). Possibly our orbital cycle really is related to the rate of entropy; maybe the pace of orbiting, as movement, reflects a universal entropy rate. On the other hand, maybe we chose it for no other reason than it is relatively constant, and so we can adjust our clock pace to that. To tell the truth, I haven't been able to figure out any absolute reason why clocks should move at the pace they do. I would be very interested in any insights anyone has on this.

Time is just a parameter that fits into
physical equations and shows the rate of change
of a physical system. Entropy increase is a result
of physical laws (their equations).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
However, I do say the following is irrefutable: no thing can exist in time which is not preceded by the potential for it to exist. Can you dispute that?

Originally posted by drag
Can you prove it ?

It is a point of logic isn't it? It seemes to me it's either a tautology or very close to one.

Originally posted by drag
Time is just a parameter that fits into
physical equations and shows the rate of change
of a physical system. Entropy increase is a result
of physical laws (their equations).

I know, but I was asking why the scale is based on orbital and rotational rates. After thinking about it I decided it was probably first determined in order to be able to predict daylight/night and seasonal changes. Of course later others such as navigators and astrologers learned to make use of the scale too.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see what you mean. By saying time doesn't exist I only meant it seems to be a scale we've chosen somewhat arbitraily (orbital pace). Possibly our orbital cycle really is related to the rate of entropy; maybe the pace of orbiting, as movement, reflects a universal entropy rate. On the other hand, maybe we chose it for no other reason than it is relatively constant, and so we can adjust our clock pace to that. To tell the truth, I haven't been able to figure out any absolute reason why clocks should move at the pace they do. I would be very interested in any insights anyone has on this.

Remember, LW Sleeth, that orbitals and clocks (and the rate of entropy, for that matter) all just ways of measuring travel along the time dimension. IOW, time is a dimension, not the rate of entropy/movement of a clock/orbital period/etc... which are just ways of measuring our movement along this dimension.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, LW Sleeth, that orbitals and clocks (and the rate of entropy, for that matter) all just ways of measuring travel along the time dimension. IOW, time is a dimension, not the rate of entropy/movement of a clock/orbital period/etc... which are just ways of measuring our movement along this dimension.

HA! How did I know you were going to say that? I am going to have to think of a way of proving to you that time is the same sort of a dimension that temperature is, a dimension of measurement.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
HA! How did I know you were going to say that? I am going to have to think of a way of proving to you that time is the same sort of a dimension that temperature is, a dimension of measurement.

Thoroughly predictable, it may be. However, if it is wrong, Relativity is wrong.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Thoroughly predictable, it may be. However, if it is wrong, Relativity is wrong.

I'm sorry Mentat, I am not sure what you mean would contradict relativity. That time is not a dimension, but is rather the rate of entropy? If so, why?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I'm sorry Mentat, I am not sure what you mean would contradict relativity. That time is not a dimension, but is rather the rate of entropy? If so, why?

Yes. Because Relativity defines time as a dimension. A dimension that warps and changes, no less.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes. Because Relativity defines time as a dimension. A dimension that warps and changes, no less.

I don't see why the concept of a time "dimension" must be part of relatively (I mean a spatial-type dimension; I've already said I can understand using the concept of a dimension as a metaphor). Consider the so-called "twins paradox." One twin leaves planet Earth to take a spaceship journey, travels close to the speed of light, comes back to find that his Earth-bound twin brother's situation (i.e., not just the brother, but his entire frame of reference) seems to have aged faster than the traveling twin.

Time apparently has "passed" more quickly on Earth. The Earth-bound twin, the furniture in his house, his wife, the planet as a whole . . . all have aged at a higher rate than the twin returning from his spaceship ride. As I've said, to say "time passing" is like saying the sun rises when it is more accurate to say the Earth has spun.

"Time" has not passed, but rather material integrity has deteriorated at different rates in the each twin's frame of reference. What caused this difference in entropy? Interesting question. Might it be, for example, that approaching the speed of light slows entropy?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes. Because Relativity defines time as a dimension. A dimension that warps and changes, no less.

I think I agree with LW Sleeth on this. From all my readings, the quote above, while maybe true, does not contradict anything about entropic theories of time. I will admit I am not an expert here, but currently I don't even see how this quote is relevant, let alone a counter-point. Any gurus want to take a shot?

On this subject of "time", I am confident there is no consensus

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
On this subject of "time", I am confident there is no consensus. . . Any gurus want to take a shot?

Something I wonder how the gurus might answer is related to one of LG's points, and comments you made about it.

Returning to the twins paradox, I wonder if each twin's experience of time would be the same. Say the traveling twin were gone five years according to shipboard clocks, and when he came back to Earth saw that 40 years had passed according to Earth clocks.

But although only five years had passed would the traveling twin feel like it had been the longest five years he'd ever experienced? That is, though his physical situation had been subject to time constriction, did it also make his consciousness fully relative to the physical circumstances?

 

[Mentat]

Did I confuse someone? I don't see how I could be more clear. General Relativity requires that time is a dimension, that warps, do to "movement". If you'd like to prove Einstein wrong on this, more power to ya, but that is what it postulates.

Also, LW Sleeth, the twin's paradox only proves my point - since the fact that time warps do to the "movement" of a twin is implied.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Did I confuse someone? I don't see how I could be more clear. General Relativity requires that time is a dimension, that warps, do to "movement". If you'd like to prove Einstein wrong on this, more power to ya, but that is what it postulates.

I don't see what your clarity of communication has to do with this dispute. The issue is if you are correct in your statement that relativity requires time to be a "dimension."

From your previous posts I know that you consider time virtually a spatial dimension. As you know, I disagree with you on this. I could agree that time can be thought of metaphorically as a dimension, but one of change (i.e., not space). But I have never read a single thing supporting your proposition that time must be considered a dimension (as you mean it) in order for relativity to be true.

Originally posted by Mentat
[BAlso, LW Sleeth, the twin's paradox only proves my point - since the fact that time warps do to the "movement" of a twin is implied. [/B]

We've never disagreed about the distortion of "something." Slowing the rate of entropy warps measurement quite nicely. You can't say "time" being warped means anything unless you first define what time is.