More about Time Definition

  • Thread starter toppam
  • Start date
  • #1
toppam
5
0
[New Theeory in Physics
Time Definition
If we go to search everything about definition of time finally will be a disillusion because of confusing definitions.
My theory will brink you clear vision about fog and confusion.

Here the definition of time: Time is 4th dimension and is equal to radius of sphere where the space is defined. Compression or expansion of space will generate compression or expansion of time. All four dimensions are correlated and cannot be separated. More concise: space is surrounded by time or defined by time and part of time. This is way so far time cannot be seen because is hard to be seen from inside.
Simple Math of Time Definition
_
At any moment a partition of time d(t) is a partition of radius __d(r), d(t)=d(r) and include space d(s)
The vector r(t) is:_______________ _x = x (t)
____________________________ _________________y = y (t)_
______________ _______________________________z = z (t)
Any movement in space (x, y, z) will be: r = (x, y, z,)= xi + yj + zk
If r(t) derive twice R
First derivate r’(t) = v (speed).
Second derivate r”(t) = a ( acceleration)
Speed vector v(t) = r’(t)=( _x’(t), y’(t), z’(t) ) = x’(t)I + y’(t)j + z’(t)k)
Acceleration vector:
a(t) = v’(t) = r”(t) = ( x”(t), y”(t), z”(t)) = x”(t)I + y”(t)j + z”(t)k
Here how space is surrounded by time.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
Yes, you have succeeded in giving us a "clear vision about fog and confusion"!

I can only determine from this that you have no idea what the word "dimension" means.
 
  • #3
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
Defintion of time? Timecube more like .
 
  • #4
One cannot define time because time doesn't exist.
 
  • #5
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
No, time does exist, people who tell you that it doesn't are stuck in the past (geddit!).

The best defintipon of time is: that which is measured by a clock.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
I should add the old "time is an illusion" was popular in Newtonian Physics as it was widely believed that everything was detirministic.
 
  • #7
time doesn't exist.

And a clock doesn't measure anything - your definition is absurd.

A clock is an object with a rotating stick. Car wheels also have a rotating stick, so i suppose they're measuring time?

I suppose a heart beat also measures time?

Nope - time does not exist.

spacetime exists, but time does not.
 
  • #8
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
And time is a dimension of spacetime. The effects of time can clearly be observed so it patently does exist.
 
  • #9
Antiproton
39
0
I've noticed a lot of people have issues with time. It's enigmatic, to be sure, but surely it must exists. The analogy of a rotating rod in a car is an oversimplification, probably. Instead, consider more regular phenomina like the period of atomic radiation.

If time did not exists, all things would happen 'simultaneously' or not at all. Since this is not the case (or we cannot perceive it to be the case), time in some manifestation must exists, lest we would be unable to determine the order of events, no?

More to the point, I think bold assertations of the non-existence of time need to be supported by some kind of evidence instead of 'your defintion is absurd'.
 
  • #10
I'm interested on CrystalStudios theory.
 
  • #11
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
A clock is an object with a rotating stick. Car wheels also have a rotating stick, so i suppose they're measuring time?
Car tires can certainly be used to measure time. Generally however we do the opposite - use time to determine the rotation rate of the car tires.
I suppose a heart beat also measures time?
Again, we generally do the opposite, use time to measure heartrate. But you could do it.

See, there are some events that DO occur at very specific rates or intervals. Transit of the sun (sundial), vibration of quarz chrystals (typical watch), vibration of cesium atoms (atomic clock). It is the difference between a number of such intervals that is defined as "time."

Certainly the RATE of the passage of time is a little tricky to pin down (made a lot easier by Einstein), but the definition of time itself has been well understood for quite a long time.

Sorry guys, time most certainly does exist. As implied earlier, the main problem here is confusion over the definitions of "time" and "dimension."
 
  • #12
Time is not real. Where is Crystal?
 
  • #13
Time is not real. Where is Crystal?

Well ... Crystal may be right to a degree.
Time is a finite attempt at motion.
Time is subject to rules - You pick a segment (cycle?) of motion and call it a unit of time as your base. You are stuck with this base unit once it is chosen. Should this segment of motion be infinitely divisible - No unit of time .. no matter how small or at whatever speed is sufficient for it's description.

We are really talking about motion when we use time, and time is a fairy tale story about motion. Time can only be real if motion acts on a tick - tock - tick - tock - basis, and for the life of me - I can't see how that could happen.

Time to me is a definition of motion. Which one would you think is real?
 
  • #14
Antiproton
39
0
You know, if all it took to discount a theory was the statement "I'm right and you're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo", we really wouldn't get much accomplished. For those of you who appear to be staunch anti-timers, let's hear an argument for the cauality of the universe. Presumably, if there is no time, there can be no 'before' and 'after' so, for example, this argument is moot because all arguments have been made and there is nothing new to be said.
 
  • #15
It would seem that antiproton and I posted at the same time (1.52). Does that mean that we really both pushed the mouse button at the same time? Somehow I don't think so. Did we push the mouse button at the same second - Doubt it.

I'm not seeing much reality here.
 
  • #16
First: i apologise for my english.
Second: I think that causality doesn't need time. If you boil an aquarius you obtain a fish soup, but by a fish soup, you can't obtain an aquarius. This direction of the events, this causality, this wall that doesn't let to go back is entropy!
We don't need time to live because universe = only one instant in wich things move, entropy rules, but time doesn't exist.
 
  • #17
Antiproton
39
0
Your analogy is interesting, but not what I was getting at. Granted, you don't need time for thermodynamically reversible processess...ideally... but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of causality of events. To use your example, if time did not exist, all events happen simultaneously. So let's say I want to make some fish soup. Since all events happen simultaneously, the water for the soup must be boiling at the same time I add the heat. This is a violation of all the laws of thermodynamics... not the least of which is entropy.
 
  • #18
Simultaneus

As I've wrote in my previous post, entropy doesn't let the universe to go back. At the same time, entropy doesn't let events overlay. So each event starts and ends at the same time without overlaying. Entropy creates what you are calling before and after, but from a universe point of view, nothing is changed. What in the universe is, it remains. It doesn't change amount, but changes only the shape. You are calling time this shape transformation. Entropy keeps causality (your before and after) and divides each event from the other.
 
  • #19
Antiproton
39
0
But a shape change is fundamental. If the shape of spacetime changes, but the 3 spatial dimensions remain the same, the 'shape' of the universe must have changed in the time coordinate.... in accordance with the known laws of entropy.

No matter how you mix it, if one can distinguish the beginning of an event from the end of the event in the same way, unequivicably, you can call it whatever you want: time, entropy, fluffy bunny slippers, it's all the same thing.
 
  • #20
fluffy bunny

Originally posted by Antiproton
But a shape change is fundamental. If the shape of spacetime changes, but the 3 spatial dimensions remain the same, the 'shape' of the universe must have changed in the time coordinate.... in accordance with the known laws of entropy.

No matter how you mix it, if one can distinguish the beginning of an event from the end of the event in the same way, unequivicably, you can call it whatever you want: time, entropy, fluffy bunny slippers, it's all the same thing.

fluffy bunny...... funny. I'm not trying to change or mixing names! I'm trying to explain that most people lives in an illusion. Time illusion. People can't detach themselves from the time idea. We are educated to think in this way. But it is an incorrect way. To distinguish two events is allowed by a different level of energy in the sistem that we are considering. But the change isn't time.
Could you answer this question:
think an isolated sistem in a field free space. Put in this space a ball. The ball stands. It doesn't move and temperature is 0 K.
Is time flowing? Is the ball experimenting time flowing?
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973


Originally posted by maumer
As I've wrote in my previous post, entropy doesn't let the universe to go back. At the same time, entropy doesn't let events overlay. So each event starts and ends at the same time without overlaying. Entropy creates what you are calling before and after, but from a universe point of view, nothing is changed. What in the universe is, it remains. It doesn't change amount, but changes only the shape. You are calling time this shape transformation. Entropy keeps causality (your before and after) and divides each event from the other.
What you are describing (pretty accurately, too) is called the "thermodynamic arrow of time." The second law of thermodynamics is an important part of our understanding of time.

Sorry, but you are arguing against yourself.
 
  • #22
Antiproton
39
0


Originally posted by maumer
Could you answer this question:
think an isolated sistem in a field free space. Put in this space a ball. The ball stands. It doesn't move and temperature is 0 K.
Is time flowing? Is the ball experimenting time flowing? [/B]

In this system, you have no idea if time flows or not because nothing changes. You cannot argue for or against time in this example. However, if in this universe you have a ball NOT at 0k, then one can assume the molecules of the ball move in some fashion. One can therefore distinguish between 1 state and another state. These states cannot be the same and they cannot coincide simultaneously. Since the ball is not moving, but is still changing, you must be able to argue it is moving in time.
 
  • #23


Originally posted by Antiproton
In this system, you have no idea if time flows or not because nothing changes. You cannot argue for or against time in this example. However, if in this universe you have a ball NOT at 0k, then one can assume the molecules of the ball move in some fashion. One can therefore distinguish between 1 state and another state. These states cannot be the same and they cannot coincide simultaneously. Since the ball is not moving, but is still changing, you must be able to argue it is moving in time.

I've put 0 K in order to stop molecules. Than, you see that everything (the ball) is not moving, and you say "you have no idea if time flows ". Correct!! But could you answer this: how could you believe in something that you could not measure in a particular state? Is any state in which you could not measure gravity or space etc. ? You could measure time only in relationship with somekind of motion. So you are calling time my entropy! Energy is an absolute object, not time, not a thing that depends by another.
 
  • #24
Antiproton
39
0
First, time is not measured relative to motion... motion is measured relative to time. v=dx/dt. Secondly, your artifical universe disallows knowledge of any physical quantity. You can't measure anything, thus you don't know if gravity even exists. I presume we both agree that there is enough evidence to support the fundamental forces....
You have to move away from the artificial examples as they are not instructive.
And finally consider this: You're arguing that entropy is the defining factor for the causality of the universe. But you cannot specify the causality of two systems that are "unrelated" (of course, quantum non-locality dictates that all systems could be interrelated on a quantum level, I'll discount that for the time being). It is possible to combine two thermodynamically viable systems and create an increase in entropy, which would, in essence, reverse the "thermodynamic arrow of time" and put the cart before the horse, so to speak. For any of our physics to work, we need to be able to say "point a in system A happened before point b in system A. And point a in system B happened before point b in system B. And FURTHER, we need to be able to specify that all four points are related to each other e.g. either point a in System A came before point a in system B of vice versa (this subsumes you have chose a reference frame consistent with Special Relativity). There is nothing in the formulation of entropy that can distinguish systems that are not in the same control volume.
 
  • #25
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973


Originally posted by maumer
I've put 0 K in order to stop molecules. Than, you see that everything (the ball) is not moving, and you say "you have no idea if time flows ". Correct!! But could you answer this: how could you believe in something that you could not measure in a particular state? Is any state in which you could not measure gravity or space etc. ? You could measure time only in relationship with somekind of motion. So you are calling time my entropy! Energy is an absolute object, not time, not a thing that depends by another.
Your example is a hypothetical that cannot exist in reality and therefore moot. We CAN measure time because in all states that exist for all systems involve changes that can be measured in time. The fact that absolute zero is unattainable is part of the proof that time exists.

However, moot or not your example STILL involves time, as time is part of how you know something is changing. If there were no time, there would be nothing on which to base the statement that the particles are stationary. So you just defined the hypothetical 'stopped time' state. How can you stop time if time doesn't exist? Catch-22 and you lose both ways.

Ironically you are trying to shoot down the concept of time by proving it cannot be separated from concepts such as energy, motion, thermodyamics, space, etc. But time is parameter by which such things can be measured and by proving you cannot isolate time you are actually proving it does exist, not that it doesn't.

You are still arguing against yourself.
 
  • #26
More

Reading previous posts:


Antiproton 07-08-2003:

"Instead, consider more regular phenomina like the period of atomic radiation."

Russ_watters 10-07-2003:
"Transit of the sun (sundial), vibration of quarz chrystals (typical watch), vibration of cesium atoms (atomic clock)."

Antiproton 10-10-2003:
"However, if in this universe you have a ball NOT at 0k, then one can assume the molecules of the ball move in some fashion. One can therefore distinguish between 1 state and another state."

In these posts you (Anti&Russ) use the motion of something to define time: atomic radiation period, cesius atom vibration, etc. In this way, you make a close correspondence between one vibration and one unit of time. But Antiproton said: "First, time is not measured relative to motion... motion is measured relative to time. v=dx/dt."
I will believe you when you will give me a time definition without starting from motion. You are using motion to define time that measures motion. A snake eating it's tail.
Reading last Antiproton post 10-10-2003:
You've made an example using two systems: A and B. Each one has two events inside: a(A), b(A), a(B), b(B). I suppose A and B are isolated one from the other, otherwise A and B are the same system and your example is untrue. Now I'm asking myself in wich system do you take your "reference frame"? Inside system A? Staying in A you cannot see B system and viceversa. Staying in A you don't know a(B) and b(B) and their order in reference of a(A) and b(A) because the two systems are isolated. Are you creating a C system in wich put A and B and looking them from C? In this case you choose an external "reference frame" and C links A and B, because if you are looking them, you interact whith them and they aren't still isolated.
Returnig in my "artificial example": in my system there is a ball. It exists, and it makes gravity field and it is surrounded by space. You haven't still answered: could you experiment gravity, space, time in my system?
 
  • #27
russ_watters
Mentor
21,937
8,973


Originally posted by maumer
In these posts you (Anti&Russ) use the motion of something to define time...
No, we use the motion of something to MEASURE time. Huge, huge, huge, huge difference. The fact that certain events do occur at regular intervals in time is a fundamental piece of evidence for time's existence. And not all of those examples depended on motion. Periodic atomic radiation (for example) isn't necessarily motion.
I will believe you when you will give me a time definition without starting from motion. You are using motion to define time that measures motion.
It doesn't have to be motion, it just has to be an observable, repeating event. In fact, even in the examples I gave, motion isn't what is measured, its electrical signals produced by motion or apparent motion in the case of the shadow on the sundial.
Now I'm asking myself in wich system do you take your "reference frame"?
Your reference frame can be wherever you wish.
...could you experiment gravity, space, time in my system?
Not a complete sentence but if you mean could you experiment on those things, the answer is yes, though you'll have to clarify what you mean by "space". You also may need to clarify what type of experiments you want to perform. Planets for example are balls surrounded by space (for the purpose of some experiments) and a great deal can be learned about their properties just by observing them and how they interact with other nearby objects. But what does this have to do with time?

Your argument here has been very much like arguing against the concept of "shoes." You gave clear examples of how to measure and observe it, described the definition, and then said it doesn't exist. Huh? Sorry, but if something exists that fits the definition, then its axiomatic. Shoes exist. Maybe you are arguing that "shoes" aren't "sandals" but if so, you're mis-applying the definition of "sandals" to disprove "shoes." You can't do that.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Anton A. Ermolenko
48
0


Originally posted by maumer
Reading previous posts:


In these posts you (Anti&Russ) use the motion of something to define time: atomic radiation period, cesius atom vibration, etc. In this way, you make a close correspondence between one vibration and one unit of time. But Antiproton said: "First, time is not measured relative to motion... motion is measured relative to time. v=dx/dt."
I will believe you when you will give me a time definition without starting from motion. You are using motion to define time that measures motion. A snake eating it's tail.
Reading last Antiproton post 10-10-2003:
You've made an example using two systems: A and B. Each one has two events inside: a(A), b(A), a(B), b(B). I suppose A and B are isolated one from the other, otherwise A and B are the same system and your example is untrue. Now I'm asking myself in wich system do you take your "reference frame"? Inside system A? Staying in A you cannot see B system and viceversa. Staying in A you don't know a(B) and b(B) and their order in reference of a(A) and b(A) because the two systems are isolated. Are you creating a C system in wich put A and B and looking them from C? In this case you choose an external "reference frame" and C links A and B, because if you are looking them, you interact whith them and they aren't still isolated.
Returnig in my "artificial example": in my system there is a ball. It exists, and it makes gravity field and it is surrounded by space. You haven't still answered: could you experiment gravity, space, time in my system?
Hello there.
What do exactly we consider? Whether time does exist or it doesn’t? What is time? Whether is time a dimension of space, enclosing us, or is it part of metrics?
Generally, time is not illusion, but motion is. Maybe, the problem is to define time. However, this problem can also be solved. If we define time by using the quantum field theory, we solve this problem. Within the framework of quantum field theory time does exist as ordering of various states of the different physical systems. Be sure - time does exist, but motion doesn’t. However, we can use the motion to measure (not to define) time.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
Motion does exist, if you don't think it does your using a far too stringent defintion of exists that rules out even easily observed phenomena.
 
  • #30
Loren Booda
3,119
4
Any argument proving time does not exist may likewise be used to disprove the existence of space. For instance, try proving that we live in a 2-D space, rather than 3-dimensional.
 
  • #31
Anton A. Ermolenko
48
0
Originally posted by jcsd
Motion does exist, if you don't think it does your using a far too stringent defintion of exists that rules out even easily observed phenomena.
Within the framework of quantum field theory secondary quantization implies that motion doesn't exist, i.e. time is defined as transition of a physical system with one set of observable values (say, A1-state) to another set of observable values (say, A2-state). If A1-state differs from A2-state by generalized coordinates, then it seems to us that we observe motion, nothing else.
 
  • #32
Antiproton
39
0
I would go so far as to say time is axiomatic. You couldn't prove the non-existence of time any more than you could disprove the communtivity of the integers under addition. It's there, and we have to deal with it. Instead, we should be discuss the nature of time, i.e. is it discrete or continuous and so on.
 
  • #33
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
Originally posted by Antiproton
I would go so far as to say time is axiomatic. You couldn't prove the non-existence of time any more than you could disprove the communtivity of the integers under addition. It's there, and we have to deal with it. Instead, we should be discuss the nature of time, i.e. is it discrete or continuous and so on.

Yes indeed; I was going to post, pretty much the same thing: the existence of time is just as axiomatic as the existence of the x, y and z directions.
 
  • #34
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
Originally posted by Anton A. Ermolenko
Within the framework of quantum field theory secondary quantization implies that motion doesn't exist, i.e. time is defined as transition of a physical system with one set of observable values (say, A1-state) to another set of observable values (say, A2-state). If A1-state differs from A2-state by generalized coordinates, then it seems to us that we observe motion, nothing else.

But surely if you have time and a spatial axis then you have dx/dt.
 
  • #35
Anton A. Ermolenko
48
0
Originally posted by Antiproton
I would go so far as to say time is axiomatic. You couldn't prove the non-existence of time any more than you could disprove the communtivity of the integers under addition.

Originally posted by jcsd
Yes indeed; I was going to post, pretty much the same thing: the existence of time is just as axiomatic as the existence of the x, y and z directions.

Not exactly that way. The system of axioms (of a specific physical theory) may content time as axiom, and may not... time can be only a theorem (e.g. there are axioms of three-dimensional linear space and four-dimensional invariant, such as four-dimensional interval in the Minkowski space-time).
Originally posted by Antiproton
It's there, and we have to deal with it. Instead, we should be discuss the nature of time, i.e. is it discrete or continuous and so on.
If we agree with time definition within the framework of quantum field theory, then time is exactly discrete.

Originally posted by jcsd
But surely if you have time and a spatial axis then you have dx/dt.
Not exactly that way. Even if A1-state differs from A2-state by generalized coordinates and linear component of four-momentum is not equal to zero (of course it isn't) you can't observe motion, because you can't observe trajectory. You can localize it with a relative exactitude, nothing else.
 

Suggested for: More about Time Definition

Replies
56
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
594
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
307
Replies
3
Views
552
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
772
Top