Is "time" something that is a real thing, or is it just a standard/belief of something to guide us humans for a day to day basis, that humans have come to accept as a fictional word, but does not really exist?
What is then time? If nobody asks me, I do know; if I want to explain it, I don't know.quid est ergo tempus? si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio
"For I hence design only to give a mathematical notion of those forces without considering their physical causes and seats" and "consider those forces not physically, but mathematically." Isaac Newton (2)
I hear my adversaries shouting in my ears that it is one thing to deal with matters physically, and quite another to do so mathematically, and that geometers should stick to their fantasies and not get entangled in philosophical matters - as if truth could ever be more than one; as if geometry up to our time had prejudiced the acquisition of true philosophy; as if it were impossible to be a geometer as well as a philosopher - and we must infer as a necessary consequence that anyone who knows geometry cannot know physics, and cannot reason about and deal with physical matters physically! (5) Galileo Galilei
The method is Faraday's. I simply applied his method to analyze the modern facts, and then described the resultant. Some of the other ideas are from other scientific philosophers.1. So where did you copy-and-paste this from?
2. Did you ignore the whole aspect of gauge invariance in physics? Or do you not know the significance of that?
I do. That is why I have written what I have written.3. Do you not know the difference between phenomenology and theory model in physics?
You did not answer my question. I asked you where you copy-and-paste that from! And don't tell me you didn't do that. Your "article" was full of citation numbers, and there are not references at the end.Hi Zz. In reply to your questions.
The method is Faraday's. I simply applied his method to analyze the modern facts, and then described the resultant. Some of the other ideas are from other scientific philosophers.
Faraday's discussion of the so called “electromagnetic” phenomena in his diary differs from Maxwell's mathematical model. Maxwell in his writings, noted that he was unable to translate Faraday's understanding and description of the phemenona, into a mathematical model, using 19th century mathematics and tools.
Faraday also did experiments with gravity.
And I do not understand what you have written here have anything to do with answering my question. Look at what you wrote earlier, and THEN, tell me why having gauge invariance would not demolish many of what you thnk it true.I do not understand how a super concept can correct a model that is incorrect at the level of primitives. For example, if there are only three dimensions in the real world, I do not understand how the String theorists, can construct a useful model that requires 11 dimensions.
Have you read Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics, The rise and fall of String Theory, the fall of a Science and What Comes Next." or Peter Woit's "Not even wrong, The failure of String Theory and The search for unity in Physical Law", also interesting is David Lindley's "The End of Physics, The Myth of a Unified Theory".
Is physics in a crisis? Is String theory akin to alchemy? The Alchemists did not fail due to a lack of intellegence.
Huh? How is this an illustration that you know the difference between phenomenology and theory? What you wrote is completely irrelevant. If that is what you think illustrate the difference, then you have ZERO clue on what they are.I do. That is why I have written what I have written.
The following is a thought problem
Imagine a very rapidly rotating cylinder. For example, experimental variable speed motors have achieved; rotating in a vacuum; using magnetic bearing; rpm’s in excess of 100,000 rpm.
Assuming a 2 cm shaft, at 100,000 rpm, the velocity at the edge of the shaft is 2*pi*R/T where T is 0.0006 sec. V = 200 m/s. The centripetal acceleration = V^2/R = 2193245 m^2/sec or dividing by 9.81 m2/s = approx. 200,000 g.
Place a highly radioactive substrate on the surface of the shaft.
As per general relativity's principal of equivalence, time slows down for the substrate at the edge of the shaft. The rate of radioactive decay slows down as one moves from the centre of the shaft to the outer edge.
From the physical world view, there is and must be a physical reason, to explain why the radioactive decay slows down. From the physical world view there is a physical reason for every phenomena change. Time is a concept, not part of physical space.
How do you see this thought experiment from Einstein’s world view?
I did not copy the unquoted text. I am the author. Clearly I have read and thought about the problem situation.You did not answer my question. I asked you where you copy-and-paste that from! And don't tell me you didn't do that. Your "article" was full of citation numbers, and there are not references at the end.
So tell me where you copied that from.
Your tone is that what I write is not philosphy. I truly do not understand how "Guage theory" solves physics' current problems or negates an alternative methodology. Please explain your point of view. What are you defending? Do you understand why it is difficult to examine the problem situation from a different world view?THEN, tell me why having gauge invariance would not demolish many of what you thnk it true.
Or physicist and Nobel Laureate, Sheldon Glashow's comment concerning string theoryThere is a long antimetaphysical tradation, the latest expression of which is the belief that the search for a world picture is old fashioned, since the advent of quantum theory. I do not agree with this view, and this book is, in one aspect, one long argument against it....It is also possible that a study of old problem situations may help to reveal that science took a 'wrong turn'. Let me explain. Old theories like Newton's or Maxwell's are supposed to be correct only in certain limited circumstances. These limitations are ... by the present theories, relativity, and quantum theory. It is often expected that the advances well be made in the 'fringes' of the present theories, and not ...Of course the claim may always be made that the existing theories are rotten to the core..
Glashow's comment questions not only where physics is headed, but also where it has been. What is the nature of the theories discussed in Steven Weinberg's December, 1999 Scientific American article entitled, "Can Physics be united"?"contemplating superstrings may evolve into an activity as remote from conventional particle physics as conventional particle physics is from chemistry, to be conducted at schools of divinity by future equivalents of medieval theologians."(3).
... But no one knows how to write down the equation of this theory." Does it appear a solution by application of the theoretic methodology is imminent? Steven Weinberg writes (same article); "It is impossible to say when these problems will be overcome. They may be solved in a preprint put out tomorrow by some young theorist. They may not be solved by 2050, or even 2150. ... we will not have any trouble recognizing a fundamental unified theory. The test ... (is when it) successfully accounts...(for the) constants of the Standard Model, along with whatever other effects beyond the Standard Model may have been discovered by then....
I didn't say you were or were not the author. I asked you where you copy it from. Noticed WHY I asked that. Re-read your original post. It contained REFERENCE NUMBERS to something, which you never also bothered to copy. Now, unless you are in the habit of writing something off the top of your head that had "numbers" suddenly appearing at various parts of your essay, then I'd say that this was part of something previously written. I want to know where it was previously written. Why is this so difficult to clarify?Zz, In response to your questions:
I did not copy the unquoted text. I am the author. Clearly I have read and thought about the problem situation.
I didn't say it SOLVES anything. I made the assertion that it contradicts what you wrote orginally. Note that you made zero mention of invariance when you talk about the consequences of special relativity. Why is that?B) Your tone is that what I write is not philosphy. I truly do not understand how "Guage theory" solves physics' current problems or negates an alternative methodology. Please explain your point of view. What are you defending? Do you understand why it is difficult to examine the problem situation from a different world view?
Do you know the percentage of physics who actually work in String/Quantum Gravity? What do you think is the LARGE division under the American Physical Society? Peole who work in "Branes"?C) Do you understand what a primitive is? Physics is the only field were primitives can be created. What pray tell is a "String" or a "Bane". Are they real? I am not the only philospher how believes that Physics is in a crisis. What is your definition of a crisis? Anyone else?
Examine all you want. But if you base it on ignorance of what the actual physics is, then you are starting on a faulty premise. As a "philospher", you of all people should know that a faulty starting premise can give you nonsensical conclusion. That is why I ASKED you to define the difference between "phenomenological" and "theory" as used in physics, because from my perspective, you seem to not know of it. You also made several strange conclusion about what can be drawn from special relativity, and somehow, our ability to have a series of "invariant" quantities escapes you.D) Is it OK to discuss parallel universes? How about theories that have 11 dimensions? What is the difference between alchemy and "String Theory"? What is your definition of the true philosphical approach? Any possiblilty you could be mistaken? Is there value in considering a new approach, if the "String" approach might not suceed? If others have failed, to solve a problem, is it possible they failed because of their approach?
E) I am certainly not the only philosopher believes a re-examination of the fundation of physics is viable and necessary alternative to the pure mathematical approach.
The Isaac Newton quote is from Concepts of Force by Max Jammer, Dover edition, 1999 page 124. The Galieo quote is from the popular book Galieo's daughter. The comment concerning Leibniz's view is based on what he wrote in the "The Leibniz-Clark correspondence."I didn't say you were or were not the author. I asked you where you copy it from. Noticed WHY I asked that. Re-read your original post. It contained REFERENCE NUMBERS to something, which you never also bothered to copy. Now, unless you are in the habit of writing something off the top of your head that had "numbers" suddenly appearing at various parts of your essay, then I'd say that this was part of something previously written. I want to know where it was previously written. Why is this so difficult to clarify?
Alchemy also had a PR problem. The question is why a 1000 scientists have spent roughly 20 years working on String theory.String theory is NOT taking over physics. In fact, they have a severe PR problem right now.
If I stated that the world is flat, facts and logic contradict that assertion.I didn't say it SOLVES anything. I made the assertion that it contradicts what you wrote orginally. Note that you made zero mention of invariance when you talk about the consequences of special relativity. Why is that?
I still do not understand why you refuse to indicate where you cut-and-paste that from. You leave me no choice to think that you have something to hide. That in itself clouds the credibility of what you have to say.ZZ in reply to your questions:
The Isaac Newton quote is from Concepts of Force by Max Jammer, Dover edition, 1999 page 124. The Galieo quote is from the popular book Galieo's daughter. The comment concerning Leibniz's view is based on what he wrote in the "The Leibniz-Clark correspondence."
Ask them! But you are making it sound as IF ALL of physics is doing that. Considering that barely 10% of physicists actually are involved in such field, there is no crisis contrary to what you imagined. I don't do string theory, and in fact, I can't since I'm an experimentalist (there are no experimentalists in string theory). I've criticized that field several times, but not because it is invading physics, but because people like you think physics is nothing but string theory. Nothing could be further than the truth. So I don't understand why you are even bringing it up.Alchemy also had a PR problem. The question is why a 1000 scientists have spent roughly 20 years working on String theory.
And this is now a physics question, not "logic". If you wish to do this, do it in the physics forum where the same scrutiny with regards to the validity of your "assertion" will be imposed.Note I am asserting that space is not empty. How can that be with the results of Michelson and Morley's experiment?
.. and what is "research-front activity", and what is "phenomenology"? It comes to the root cause here, that you simply have no idea how physics works and the difference between phenomenological and theoretical ideas. It is as if difficult problems in physics are solved in the blink of an eye.Lastly, as to whether physics is or is not in a crisis. What is dark matter? What is dark energy? Why are there anomalous very high temperature gases, in intergalactic space?
What I copied above is an excerpt from my own unpublished paper. The following is additional material from the paper.I still do not understand why you refuse to indicate where you cut-and-paste that from. You leave me no choice to think that you have something to hide. That in itself clouds the credibility of what you have to say.
Ultimately, however, facts are the only things, which are worthy of trust. All of our theories and explanations of laws that govern them, whether particular or general, are necessarily deduced from insufficient data. They are probably most correct when they agree with the greatest number of phenomena, and when they do not appear incompatible with each other. Hence, I should recommend the practice of generalizing as a sort of parsing in philosophy. It occasions a review of single opinions, requires a distinct impression of each, and ascertains their connection and government. And it is on this idea of the important use that may be made of generalization that I venture to propose for this evening, a lecture on the general states of matter. Michael Faraday, 1819 (1)
Reichenbach believes that a group can amplify the efforts of each individual in the group. This is true with certain limitations. In the case of physics, if the assertion that the theoretic methodology is limited is correct, the probability of success or a breakthrough is not necessarily proportional to the number of people creating theoretical models. Is it possible that the theoretic methodology has enabled physicists to reach a plateau, a type of crisis, in which the creation of a specific type of model no longer advances physics? What are the limitations of a model that is flawed at the level of primitives?The social character of scientific work is the source of its strength; the limited power of the individual is supplemented by the resources of the group, the slips of the individual are corrected by his fellow workers, and the resultant …(is) to discover answers that a single individual could never find. (4) Hans Reichenbach, The Rise Of Scientific Philosophy, 1951
The following is an excerpt from Lawrence Sklar's book "Philosophy and Spacetime Physics"This is the WHOLE reason that I brought up the concept of INVARIANCE in physics. Just because something APPEARS to be different under different circumstances does not mean that there aren't a set of description that are INVARIANT across various changes, ... This is absurd! You are just seeing different PROPERTIES of the object. Length contraction and time dilation is really, NOT the property of the object, but rather the property of light and HOW WE DEFINE LENGTH AND TIME! The atom appears to "contract" only because of the way we would measure it, and we know this because we can always get INVARIANT QUANTITIES out of it no matter where it is. You are paying attention to the shadow of the object here and mistaken it FOR the object!
You do not need to defend theoretical physics. It is what it is. Breakthroughs are breakthroughs because there is a resistance to change. Let's move on and develop the alternative philosophy, which requires the examination and discussion of the facts, as the alternative philosophy is a scientific philosophy, not an ethical philosophy.Don't let yourself get stuck between alternatives, or you're lost. You're not that strong. If the alternatives are side by side choose the one on the left; If they are consecutive in time, choose the earlier. If neither of these applies, choose the alternative whose name begins with the earlier letter of the alphabet. These are the principles of Sinistrality, Antecedence, and Alphabetic Priority - there are others, they're arbritary, but useful. Good-by
- John Barth, The End of the Road
And since when has philosophy actually have made any advances in physics in the last century or so? Philosophy never made any prediction of the paradigm shifts that resulted in both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. In fact, it is the OTHER way around, whereby physics and our new understanding of what Mother Nature is telling us seems to shape the discipline of philosophy. The majority of physicists are absolutely ignorant of formal philosophy, be it in their education, or in their profession. It does not guide nor assist them in their ability to make a series of mind-boggling discovery.ZZ,
Scientific philosophy is the critical examination of the foundation of science. The objective is to critically discuss and compare alternative views. A philosophical viewpoint is not true just because it is adamently stated. I have a deep understanding of "theoretical philosophy" the philosophy of theoretical physics. I also have a fairly strong understanding of the associated mathematics of the underlying theoretical models of physics. (I have a degree in mathematics, with a minor in physics.)
I am critically examining "theoretical philosophy" and providing an alternative philosophy. You are trying to stop me from discussing the alternative competing philosophy, which is "Methodology Conservatism". My very point is that physics has failed to advance due to "Methodology Conservatism". You are demonstrating the problem.
Then what I suspected was right. Please re-read the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you have explicitly agreed to.What I copied above is an excerpt from my own unpublished paper. The following is additional material from the paper.
The Nature of Matter, Space, and the Pursuit of Ontological Correctness, by William Astley.
That isn't a stretch. I know that I definitely disagree with what you are trying to do.Perhaps we should just agree to not agree.
Why is this a "revelation"? Since when is "time" considered as a "physical space"? You didn't notice that they are of different dimensions when you did your minor?This thread is entitled, What is time.
I am stating that time is a concept and not part of physical space.
Define "physical space" and "mathematical space". In fact, defined "space", since you appear to be making things up here. And I require exact citation from VALID sources. If not, these are your own personal theory and such a thing should be done in the IR forum, not here.I am differentiating between physical space and mathematical space.
I believe what I wrote is within the guidelines of the philosophy forum. There are other Philosophers who also believe that if time is a concept it cannot be part of physical space.In general, one should attempt to flesh out questions and arguments in the philosophy forums adequately enough that readers will have a good understanding of the problem, the backdrop against which it resides, and the justification of one's perspective. This might include
* explicitly defining key terms;
* justifying why this is a valid issue or problem in the first place;
* explicitly stating starting premises or assumptions;
* providing logical or empirical support for such premises or assumptions;
* making subtle logical steps more explicit;
* summarizing previous arguments made on the topic and explaining how they are relevant to your argument;
Are you familar with Thomas Kuhn‘s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” ? I am not aware of any recent mind-boggling discoveries in physics. There seems to be a recent outburst of speculative physics theories. Why are there so many speculative physics theories being created?The majority of physicists are absolutely ignorant of formal philosophy, be it in their education, or in their profession. It does not guide nor assist them in their ability to make a series of mind-boggling discovery.
Hold that thought, because this could be a very important distinction. What do you mean by physical space?I am stating that time is a concept and not part of physical space.
Time is a concept, physical processes do not occur because of time. It is not physically possible to travel forward or backward in "time". It is possible using mathematics and/or word descriptions to create imaginary processes that are physically not possible and to create using word descriptions with or without mathematics imaginary things/entities that do not existing in the physical world.Does Time exist?
If Time didn't exist, how come so many people talk about it?
Whether or not, at a deeper level, Time actually exists as we think it does:
1) At some point a baby is born;
2) On the day he is 18 years old, he is called an adult (by society);
3) When he's 65 years old, it's time for him to consider collecting Social Security;
4) There will come a day when he stops breathing (the time of his death).
So living and Time seem to be connected at some level.
It is a common experience.
Most people sleep every day (so Time to sleep may exist).