What Is Time and Why Do We Misunderstand It?

[Nizzeberra]

Hi Nizzeberra,

That is a very perceptive idea as to how the rate of time can appear to change, for a system that has a fundamental rate of time that is constant (such as that given by the constant speed of light).

Have you any more ideas on this as an explanation?

Robin

As you have probably seen by my other posts, I have changed my claim about "everything moves at speed c" to "everything changes states at a constant rate". I don't know if this is true, but I think it is a good assumption since the only way to measure time is through state changes in particles, and if we can't rely on the rate at which things happen, the rate of time would seem to fluctuate (which it doesn't). "Time dilation" must mean a lower frequency of certain events, namely the events we use to measure time (especially when testing Einstein and relativity), like radioactive decay or vibration of an atom, while other events obviously occur much more frequently as we accelerate - position change. Think of it as if every particle has a certain limited amount of "actions per second".

Note that this rate of change is relative between particles, since two particles can only measure the flow of time by observing each other. If they are both running along in the same direction, the actual "absolute" rate at which events occur (if there is such a rate) does not matter and cannot be measured. The only thing that is relevant is the relative rate, and this is where the term "frame of reference" comes into play.

I hope this explained my point... If not, keep asking. But remember that I was hoping for some answers myself. :)

 

[Drakkith]

First of all... Minimum energy state does not equal zero energy. A temperature of absolute zero is not possible. There is always a small temperature. And what is temperature if not vibration? If "minimum energy state" means "absolute rest", and no time can be measured, time does not exist, since science is about the things you can measure.

Temperature does not apply to single particles, it only applies to systems of particles where you can apply statistical mechanics to them. An atom in it's ground state IS in its minimum energy state. (What some may call absolute zero) The remaining energy is not vibrational, it is locked up as the mass of the atom.

Second, a wavefunction collapses when "observed". The only thing needed to observe a particle is another particle. If the entire universe would consist of a single (stable) particle, the concept of time would be pointless. And if you can't measure time, time does not exist (since science is about the things you can measure). So you need at least two particles, and two particles will always "vibrate" (change states, in my definition of state as "position (x, y, z)" is a state) regarding each other. It will just take more or less "time" before they "observe" each other and the wave function collapses. After the collapse, each particle's wave function will "expand" (or whatever you want to call it) as the position will become more and more diffuse with time, until it collapses when the particles interact again. This process is what I call "changing state" (since the position has changed).

QM says nothing about these "vibrations", so what reason do we have to accept this as a plausible explanation?

I can't imagine a particle with a constantly well defined position, if not constantly observed. But can particles and/or fields be constantly interacting, or do they just interact very frequently? I would like to say "frequently", since that would explain the small unavoidable vibration (temperature) every particle has. This frequency at which they interact, is the frequency of state changes I'm talking about.

The frequency of interaction between a field and a particle? I've never heard of such a concept. And as I said above, single particles do not have "vibrations" like you imagine.

Again I will warn that personal theories are not allowed on PF and will only result on this thread being locked, as was warned at the beginning of the thread as well.

Take the example of a plant that grows more slowly in winter than in summer. Because we understand how plants grow, we can draw the conclusion that the plant's slow growth is not down to the rate of time changing for the plant, but down to a non-time related factor - in this case temperature and the amount of sunlight being reduced.

What is the basis to conclude that two particles moving in relation to each other, have a different rate of time? And which one has the faster / slower rate of time?

Take two clocks, accelerate one to high speed, turn it around and bring it back. It will have measured a small amount of time as having passed than the clock that did not move. The clocks can be any type of clock. Mechanical, electrical, atomic, etc. All will show time dilation.

The same effect will happen if you use something like Muons, which decay quickly. Accelerate a muon away from one that doesn't accelerate. The first muon will decay after the 2nd more often on average as viewed by a stationary observer.

 

[Nizzeberra]

Temperature does not apply to single particles...

Thank you for your answer. I do admit I have very limited knowledge in this area, and that is why my first post in this thread was phrased as a question + an attempt to an answer. I am more interested in a serious answer to my question than focusing on my confused analysis of it. If collecting the small pieces of knowledge from all areas within physics I have, and if putting them together like pieces of a puzzle (perhaps in the wrong order) by assuming wrong things is a "personal theory", then all discussions considered a "learning process" through this forum should be banned. The only allowed activity should be quoting acknowledged physicists, and a list of such has to be provided. If this is the case I will happily remove my account from this place.

Here are some random quotes: There are no such thing as a fact. There are only theories, and measurements that agree or disagree with the theories. (But are the measurements themselves facts)?

So, let's step back to my original question, let's try some constructive critics for a change (since you have only racked down on my "theories" without any attempt to answer anything yourself).

The term "time dilation" means that "time slows down", which in turn has to mean that "some certain event slows down"... Do we agree so far? Then my question for you is as follows. If radioactive decay is an approved event for measuring time dilation, why is the movement of your feet not (as this motion won't show any time dilation, or will it)?

 

[Drakkith]

Thank you for your answer. I do admit I have very limited knowledge in this area, and that is why my first post in this thread was phrased as a question + an attempt to an answer. I am more interested in a serious answer to my question than focusing on my confused analysis of it. If collecting the small pieces of knowledge from all areas within physics I have, and if putting them together like pieces of a puzzle (perhaps in the wrong order) by assuming wrong things is a "personal theory", then all discussions considered a "learning process" through this forum should be banned. The only allowed activity should be quoting acknowledged physicists, and a list of such has to be provided. If this is the case I will happily remove my account from this place.

Learning is not frowned upon, putting together personal models or theories based on incomplete understanding of physics and then posting those on PF is however. If you do not understand something, ask about it, please do not jump to making your own conclusions. The reason is obvious if you look at this thread, as it has been severely de-railed from it's initial topic for much of the last entire page. Also, please do not take my criticism as a personal attack. I try very hard to keep my posts reasonably well written and avoid as much harshness and talking down to as I can.

So, let's step back to my original question, let's try some constructive critics for a change (since you have only racked down on my "theories" without any attempt to answer anything yourself).

I have answered pretty much everything you have asked. You just haven't asked much other than "Is my idea correct?"

The term "time dilation" means that "time slows down", which in turn has to mean that "some certain event slows down"... Do we agree so far? Then my question for you is as follows. If radioactive decay is an approved event for measuring time dilation, why is the movement of your feet not (as this motion won't show any time dilation, or will it)?

Your feet will show time dilation. Just not when they are planted on the ground. Think of a wheel in motion. The part of the wheel in contact with the ground is always stationary with respect to it unless it is sliding. Your feet are moving relative to you at all times, and to the ground when your foot is pulled up, moved forward, and pressed down again until it hits the ground.

 

[detective]

hello all .. could time and space be tethered by this notion?

a simple model is a universe that is 186 miles in circumference and a photon (or a massless object that complies with the known laws of physics) has traveled back to exactly the same place it departed from...the time taken would be 1000th of a second...to us observers the time scale is negligible but very real

... as the universe grew to 1860 miles, we observe the time taken is now 100th of a second... and on and on

this reasoning can go back to the singularity or forward for what we call infinity

you can see as the universe expanded, so did time become more relevant to the observer but as we know ...time stands still at the speed of light, so relatively speaking the growing universe wouldn't be noticed as the travels around the circumference grew larger and larger...

could it be that time and dilation exist as a requirement for our convenience and is exactly complimentary to the expansion of space and entropy?...and taken back to the singularity or forward to infinity means nothing at the speed of light?

could this be possibly where our observations and measurements fail us and makes the question an unanswerable one, relatively speaking?

 

[Drakkith]

This thread seems to keep getting far off into speculation land. As this is against PF rules I am requesting a lock.

For anyone reading this, here's a link to help you understand what we consider time to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
If your views are strikingly different from the general idea on that page, you should seriously think about WHY you believe so, as your ideas are probably not based on available evidence and an understanding of current physics and are not suitable for a scientific forum such as PF. (Note that I am not saying they are WRONG, I am saying they don't belong on this forum)

 

[detective]

This thread seems to keep getting far off into speculation land. As this is against PF rules I am requesting a lock.

For anyone reading this, here's a link to help you understand what we consider time to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
If your views are strikingly different from the general idea on that page, you should seriously think about WHY you believe so, as your ideas are probably not based on available evidence and an understanding of current physics and are not suitable for a scientific forum such as PF. (Note that I am not saying they are WRONG, I am saying they don't belong on this forum)

i too suggest it should be locked...if only for the reasoning that freedom of thought, and the ability to convey that on this thread is being hampered... with the end result, accidentally or not.. ridicule for the unwary ...

 

[jtbell]

Yes, this thread has run on far longer than it should have. Our apologies.