Why is our definition of time incorrect?

[Truden]

Hi everybody

What is Time?
I gave a thought to this question and came to the conclusion that the accepted definition for Time is incorrect.

The definition of time which we use is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”

My definition is:
“Relation between two events in the continuum of events”
Time is relevant and limited to the events.

In philosophical discussions (science uses philosophy) I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular argument the time is placed before the events.
The definition of time IMPLIES that the events appear IN time, but it is actually the other way round - time is created as concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:

1) If there are no events in the Universe there will not be time.

Some people will argue that there will be time but we will not be able to measure it.
That would be fallacy.
We measure time with time which is actually event with event (circle around the sun with spins around the Earth axis)
The logical conclusion is that we cannot apply time to a motionless universe.

How do we measure time? - with reoccurring event.
What is to MEASURE time? - it is to relate one event to another event.

I think that this is quite clear.

2) We need two or more events in order to have time as existing concept.
One event is insufficient for time creation.

To have “motion” we need universe with minimum two objects.
To have “time” we need universe with minimum two events.

If there is universe with one only object, that object can not exhibit motion and cannot exist in time.
It can only exist as motionless in space.
The definition of time does not apply to such Universe.

If the Universe is created from two objects, which are moving away from each other, according to the definition of time we should have time, but how can we explain and how can we measure time in such universe?
In this case we can only claim that an event occurs in space, but not in time.

3) When you argue the above, do not refer to the already built mind concept of time.
- Have in mind, that you already have the time concept from at least two events in your life.
Note that your thinking is an event too.
- Do not use “speed” for proving “time”.
Speed is related to motion.
If we have only two moving away from each other objects, speed has no use for time.
- Relation between to events is for example “the number of Earth spins in one circle around the sun”.
- Every time-measuring tool is “event”
- All events appear in space except the thought (the thinking).

Well, this is my idea about “time”.
Most probably I missed something, but that is why I put it on discussion :-)

I am interested whether the above interpretation can affect the physics and if yes, to what extent.

 

[NWH]

I was going to attempt to say something, but now I don't think I can. I honestly don't know what time is, to truly know I would have to live from before the very instance of it's creation to beyond the very end of it's destruction. Something (hypothetically) not even time it's self could do. The best I could say, is that time is the measurement we use to determine the rate of irreversable change within our experience of the universe.

 

[workmad3]

I wouldn't say I know what time is. There does seem to be some problems with your interpretation that don't fit in with the findings of SR and GR though. I think the main problem is that with your interpretation(or at least how I interpreted it , time distinguishes between 2 events absolutely. Relativity has shown that there is no such thing as an absolute time for the entire universe, instead showing us something much more interesting (but still not good for saying what time is in the definite sense

 

[Truden]

There does seem to be some problems with your interpretation that don't fit in with the findings of SR and GR though. I think the main problem is that with your interpretation(or at least how I interpreted it , time distinguishes between 2 events absolutely.

We cannot use the "finding" word if we don't know what is in the core of the finding.
In that regard the "finding" is "interpretation".

SR uses time as measurable essence and that gives absolute value to time.
Since that value is impossible without having two events, SR with its interpretation falls in my interpretation and should concur with it.

 

[p764rds]

Hi everybody

What is Time?
I gave a thought to this question and came to the conclusion that the accepted definition for Time is incorrect.

The definition of time which we use is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”

My definition is:
“Relation between two events in the continuum of events”
Time is relevant and limited to the events.

In philosophical discussions (science uses philosophy) I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular argument the time is placed before the events.
The definition of time IMPLIES that the events appear IN time, but it is actually the other way round - time is created as concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:

1) If there are no events in the Universe there will not be time.

Some people will argue that there will be time but we will not be able to measure it.
That would be fallacy.
We measure time with time which is actually event with event (circle around the sun with spins around the Earth axis)
The logical conclusion is that we cannot apply time to a motionless universe.

How do we measure time? - with reoccurring event.
What is to MEASURE time? - it is to relate one event to another event.

I think that this is quite clear.

2) We need two or more events in order to have time as existing concept.
One event is insufficient for time creation.

To have “motion” we need universe with minimum two objects.
To have “time” we need universe with minimum two events.

If there is universe with one only object, that object can not exhibit motion and cannot exist in time.
It can only exist as motionless in space.
The definition of time does not apply to such Universe.

If the Universe is created from two objects, which are moving away from each other, according to the definition of time we should have time, but how can we explain and how can we measure time in such universe?
In this case we can only claim that an event occurs in space, but not in time.

3) When you argue the above, do not refer to the already built mind concept of time.
- Have in mind, that you already have the time concept from at least two events in your life.
Note that your thinking is an event too.
- Do not use “speed” for proving “time”.
Speed is related to motion.
If we have only two moving away from each other objects, speed has no use for time.
- Relation between to events is for example “the number of Earth spins in one circle around the sun”.
- Every time-measuring tool is “event”
- All events appear in space except the thought (the thinking).

Well, this is my idea about “time”.
Most probably I missed something, but that is why I put it on discussion :-)

I am interested whether the above interpretation can affect the physics and if yes, to what extent.

Interesting post, thanks. There is another way of thinking:
The concept of a 3D space with two objects in it is an absurdity (IMO) - its illogical - it could not physically exist - but it could easily exist in mathematics and be implemented in information. A 3D computer reality does just that. So, maybe the universe is doing something similar - i.e. everything is in information including 3D space itself.
There would then be a present moment in information, and a needed SR spacetime correction (Lorentz etc) to keep causality correct. SR is, in this sense, an annoying necessity for anyone trying to model a field type of universe as we have. It is necessary because an infinite speed of light would not work wrt causality, and we are forced to design in a maximum speed of information travel (light/gravitons speed) and then do Lorentz type corrections to keep the system logically correct.

 

[Truden]

Interesting post, thanks. There is another way of thinking:
The concept of a 3D space with two objects in it is an absurdity (IMO) - its illogical - it could not physically exist - but it could easily exist in mathematics and be implemented in information. A 3D computer reality does just that. So, maybe the universe is doing something similar - i.e. everything is in information including 3D space itself.
There would then be a present moment in information, and a needed SR spacetime correction (Lorentz etc) to keep causality correct. SR is, in this sense, an annoying necessity for anyone trying to model a field type of universe as we have. It is necessary because an infinite speed of light would not work wrt causality, and we are forced to do Lorentz type corrections to keep the system logically correct. So 'time' gets a hammering.

Why is it impossible to have 3D space with two only objects?!
How is it impossible?
If you refer to my example, the only impossibility in such space is Time, but that is the point of my interpretation.

I don't see logic to refute my interpretation because it does not fit SR.
It is logical to conclude that SR works with wrong understanding about Time and some of the interpretations must be revised.

Saying "present moment" you are relying to the mind as observer who treats the point of observation as point of time. You are actually including one event which we call THINKING.
Is your Time related to your thinking?
If YES, then Time is not universal value, but mind value.

If you don't agree with the above, you must define "present moment" as something not related to your mind.

 

[Truden]

In connection with my comment from the above, I'd like to clear something very important about the way we perceive Time.

PRESENT MOMENT is created by overlapping two events in the continuum of events.
Our observation is an event in that continuum.
When the observation as event matches (overlaps) another event, we talk about "present moment".

STARTING MOMENT is the event from which we start the relations between one ore more events with the event of our thinking.

 

[workmad3]

We cannot use the "finding" word if we don't know what is in the core of the finding.
In that regard the "finding" is "interpretation".

SR uses time as measurable essence and that gives absolute value to time.
Since that value is impossible without having two events, SR with its interpretation falls in my interpretation and should concur with it.

Perhaps 'observations and predictions' would be better phrasing, but that doesn't alter the problem. SR doesn't give an absolute value of time, it removes such an absolute value. Time becomes just another coordinate with no preferred origin or coordinate system and each event/object/particle has it's own time coordinate that is separate from others. There is no concept of 'two events happening at the same time' in any globally meaningful sense, and there's even an issue with saying 'this event happened then that event happened' in a globally meaningful sense. Relative time is a strange beast that doesn't fit in with our 'common sense' observations, yet appears to be more accurate with our current experimental evidence.

So what is time? Who knows... perhaps it doesn't truly exist in any fashion and the only thing that gives it an illusion of existence is our limited reference frame and our inability to observe a true 4 (or more) dimensional reality in all it's glory. How does time function? In a strange, common sense defying yet remarkably beautiful fashion :)

 

[p764rds]

Why is it impossible to have 3D space with two only objects?!
How is it impossible?
If you refer to my example, the only impossibility in such space is Time, but that is the point of my interpretation.

Lets create in nothingness a 3D empty cubic space of lengths 100 metres(1000000 cu metres) and place two objects in it... We can do that mathematically by drawing the cube of the required length and drawing two objects in the space all on paper. Fine, no problem. Then move the objects around using a parameter called time, if we want. We can also do it in a computer - but that is an implementation of mathematics in information and is an illusion - its not real physical space.

But its not possible to create a physical 3D space that comes into existence in nothingness (I mean no x,y,z to start with, and we try to create x,y,z). What holds it up? What defines its boundaries? Its not made of anything. Has it got walls? There are so many illogicalities in such a system. It simply cannot physically exist. It is mathematical in nature.

 

[matheinste]

Hello Truden.

Events in spacetime do not overlap. they have no temporal or spatial extension.

Matheinste.

 

[Truden]

SR doesn't give an absolute value of time, it removes such an absolute value. Time becomes just another coordinate with no preferred origin or coordinate system and each event/object/particle has it's own time coordinate that is separate from others.

SR applies absolute value to Time as a coordinate system where objects and events are PLACED.
My interpretation removes that value and presents Time as continuum of events in space.
Time is not a dimension anymore, but mind interpretation (mind perception) of the relations between the events.

There is no concept of 'two events happening at the same time' in any globally meaningful sense, and there's even an issue with saying 'this event happened then that event happened' in a globally meaningful sense. Relative time is a strange beast that doesn't fit in with our 'common sense' observations, yet appears to be more accurate with our current experimental evidence.

There is such concept as "two overlapping events" (two events at the same time) and it is related to the event of our thinking.
We may not be able to think of two events at the same time, but that doesn't mean that they cannot overlap in the line of events.
The simplest representation of the events lime is:
- - - = - = = - - - = = = - - =
where two (or more) events can overlap in the line of events.

So what is time? Who knows... perhaps it doesn't truly exist in any fashion and the only thing that gives it an illusion of existence is our limited reference frame and our inability to observe a true 4 (or more) dimensional reality in all it's glory. How does time function? In a strange, common sense defying yet remarkably beautiful fashion :)

We will not be able to even imagine another dimension if we don't have right understanding about the meaning of "dimension".
Our wrong interpretation about time, assigns wrong value to Universe, thus making us deal with interpreted (not real) value.

And we come back to the question: Does Time has real value or it has interpreted value, derived from the relation between two or more events?

The only logical answer is that since we cannot measure time without having two events, Time has interpreted value.
Therefore Time is interpretation of our mind.

 

[Truden]

Hello Truden.

Events in spacetime do not overlap. they have no temporal or spatial extension.

Matheinste.

Hello Matheinste,

You can use "space-time" as term only if you refute my interpretation.

Overlapping events exist in space.
When you think about the events as line of events, you should not exclude the event of your thinking, which is included in the line of events.
Every mind reference to relation between events is new event, which extends the line thus forming illusion about past.
If we don't have memory about the past, time will be absent, because the events in the line will be absent.

 

[Naty1]

Truden,
you might enjoy reading Brian Greene's THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE Chapter 2 (Space, Time and the eye of the beholder) which is introductory in nature and also in his book THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS, PARTS ii and iii where he dovotes several hundred pages to time and related concepts...

we do have reasonable methods for measuring and predicting time, but fundamentlly no one knows what time IS...somehow it seems to have popped out at the origin of this universe along with space and energy...

 

[Truden]

But its not possible to create a physical 3D space that comes into existence in nothingness (I mean no x,y,z to start with, and we try to create x,y,z). What holds it up? What defines its boundaries? Its not made of anything. Has it got walls? There are so many illogicalities in such a system. It simply cannot physically exist. It is mathematical in nature.

He-he
I like your thinking and I encourage you to apply it to the "impossibility" of our Universe
For now just assume that you don't have to create the two objects, and that they were created the way our universe was.

 

[Truden]

Truden,
you might enjoy reading Brian Greene's THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE Chapter 2 (Space, Time and the eye of the beholder) which is introductory in nature and also in his book THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS, PARTS ii and iii where he dovotes several hundred pages to time and related concepts...

Thanks, Naty, but my search gives me only audio and video downloads for "THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE". I cannot find it as a book.

we do have reasonable methods for measuring and predicting time, but fundamentlly no one knows what time IS...somehow it seems to have popped out at the origin of this universe along with space and energy...

It is obvious from my interpretation that I disagree with the understanding that time "popped out at the origin of this universe along with space and energy"

We talk about time (and only about the type of time) which we have as a concept.
Some people say that even if we don't have the concept, the time would still exist.
Well, if the time is a concept and we couldn't create it, it wouldn't exist.
The question is whether the concept can pass the test.
Obviously it cannot pass it when we have one only event.
Then we should conclude that it is wrong concept - interpretation of our mind.

 

[Mentz114]

Truden,
if you define time as some kind of relation between two events, then obviously if there is only one event there is no relation and no time.

So what ? Why are you so excited by this mundane thought ?

However, in order to define your one event you had to use some sort of definition of time so there's a contradiction in any case.

 

[phyti]

Truden;
Right on, you see it for what it is. We match an arbitrary event with a clock event.
A person in a coma is not aware of time. Relativity is about subjective time. Don't let them dissuade you with science fiction.

 

[Doc Al]

A person in a coma is not aware of time. Relativity is about subjective time. Don't let them dissuade you with science fiction.

Relativity has nothing to do with subjective, psychological time. Where did you get that notion?

 

[Truden]

Truden,
if you define time as some kind of relation between two events, then obviously if there is only one event there is no relation and no time.

A-a-a... you are not following, my friend.
According to the present definition of time if there is event there should be time.
Obviously the definition is wrong, because as you noticed one event is not enough.

Then my definition comes to say that we need relation between two events in order to have time.

So what ? Why are you so excited by this mundane thought ?

Oh, I'm not exited by the idea. I even feel somehow guilty for Einstein.

However, in order to define your one event you had to use some sort of definition of time so there's a contradiction in any case.

Ha-ha...
What time?
It seems that you don't get the point.

 

[naturale]

To define time it is necessary assume periodicity, we actually define time counting the number of cycles in of a phenomena SUPPOSED to be periodic.

1) The inverse of the periodicity fixes the energy. There is not a master periodicity: systems with different energy have different periodicity. The combination of these periodicity allows to order event in time as in a calendar or a clock.

2) With interaction a periodic system change energy. This means it passes from a periodic regime to another: we can establish a before the interaction and an after the interaction. (The laboratory clock can be supposed with a periodicity bigger than the characteristic periodicity of the system or infinite).

3) The assumption of periodicity yields to an effective (covariant) quantization which remarkably match the usual quantization. In a relativistic contest (Minkowski metric) such a dynamical periodicity gives the possibility of a coherent view of SR e QM.

ref arxiv:0903.3680

 

[workmad3]

Ha-ha...
What time?
It seems that you don't get the point.

It actually seems like your point keeps on changing each time someone brings up an objection to your viewpoint.

I'm stepping out of this discussion now as it appears you will not take on board any argument that contradicts your view :P

 

[Truden]

Truden;
Right on, you see it for what it is. We match an arbitrary event with a clock event.
A person in a coma is not aware of time. Relativity is about subjective time. Don't let them dissuade you with science fiction.

Phyti, I personally don't mind the way Time is defined and explained, but at some points science is really going into fiction, like GRAVITY CHANGES TIME

 

[Truden]

It actually seems like your point keeps on changing each time someone brings up an objection to your viewpoint.

I'm stepping out of this discussion now as it appears you will not take on board any argument that contradicts your view :P

I haven't said much in this topic to have the chance to change the point.
I did even repeated myself few times.
Pleas, show where I changed my point.

 

[Truden]

To define time it is necessary assume periodicity, we actually define time counting the number of cycles in of a phenomena SUPPOSED to be periodic.

We don't define time with periodicity.
We measure it that way.

 

[naturale]

The official SI definition of the second is as follows:
The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

 

[naturale]

We don't define time with periodicity.
We measure it that way.

But if you want you can use as reference periods the Earth or moon cycles or the oscillation of a pendulum, as long as you suppose them periodic.

 

[p764rds]

We are getting to the question of time continuous or quantized rather than time itslef.

 

[naturale]

"By a clock we understand anything characterized by a phenomenon passing periodically through
identical phases so that we must assume, by the principle of sufficient reason, that all that
happens in a given period is identical with all that happens in an arbitrary period." A. Einstein

 

[naturale]

We are getting to the question of time continuous or quantized rather than time itslef.

Why quantized? A pendulum doesn't move by steps.

 

[OB 50]

Phyti, I personally don't mind the way Time is defined and explained, but at some points science is really going into fiction, like GRAVITY CHANGES TIME

Here's the thing: gravity DOES change time, right along with relative motion.

I'm not sure why you think that's so hilarious.

Can I assume that you are aware of the existence of the Global Positioning System? GPS has to be precisely calibrated to compensate for the relativistic effects experienced between the satellites in orbit and the receivers on the ground. If it were not for our understanding of the predictable and verifiable effects of relativity, which include gravitational time dilation, GPS would simply not work. The clocks on the satellites run at a different rate than the clocks "down here".

It is a fact; not fiction in the slightest.

 

[Naty1]

Gravitational potential DOES change the flow of time...it's experimentally verified theory...

Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once

commented a famous physicist whose name I've forgotten...

 

[phyti]

Relativity has nothing to do with subjective, psychological time. Where did you get that notion?

From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."

The same place he got his!

 

[phyti]

Phyti, I personally don't mind the way Time is defined and explained, but at some points science is really going into fiction, like GRAVITY CHANGES TIME

In your search for understanding time, it helps if you keep current on experimentally verified facts, which include gravitational slowing of clocks.

 

[Chiclayo guy]

Are “clocks” time? Aren’t they simply man-made devices to measure rates of change?

 

[naturale]

Are “clocks” time? Aren’t they simply man-made devices to measure rates of change?

Are meters space? or just a way to measure distances? Physical concepts are defined through experiment and measurement devices.

 

[phyti]

Truden;

SR uses time as measurable essence and that gives absolute value to time.

All measurements are relative, i.e. comparison to a standard.

- Do not use “speed” for proving “time”.
Speed is related to motion.
If we have only two moving away from each other objects, speed has no use for time.

speed is rate of change of position
You need two postions, each matched to a different clock event, to determine this.

- Relation between to events is for example “the number of Earth spins in one circle around the sun”.

The sun-earth system is the clock, the time unit is a 24 hr day.

- Every time-measuring tool is “event”

The event is equivalent to the mark on a ruler. The ruler(clock) is the tool, the marks(ticks) are the uniform periodic events.

- All events appear in space except the thought (the thinking).

The thoughts are also events in space, just confined to the mind.

Saying "present moment" you are relying to the mind as observer who treats the point of observation as point of time. You are actually including one event which we call THINKING.
Is your Time related to your thinking?
If YES, then Time is not universal value, but mind value.

The time we are discussing is subjective time, i.e. perception, sensory processing of signals and subsequent awareness of external events. SR demonstrates that this perception of time is altered by motion, just as it alters clock function.
Currently there is no knowledge of a universal/objective time phenomena.
We can imagine one, similar to a processor clock signal, that spreads throughout the universe for the purpose of regulation, i.e. synchronization, state transitions, coordination, etc. Surely we haven't discovered everything!

 

[Chiclayo guy]

Are meters space? or just a way to measure distances? Physical concepts are defined through experiment and measurement devices.

I’m sorry….I don’t understand your response. As I see it meters are not space – space is space. Meters are an arbitrary unit of measurement to determine distance. Neither time nor meters are physical properties. They are tools to measure the physical properties of change and distance.

 

[Doc Al]

From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."

The same place he got his!

Let us know when you get past the first page. You'll find, this provocative quote notwithstanding, that relativity deals with the behavior of mundane material things such as clocks and rulers. Not psychologically subjective time. It certainly doesn't deal with how someone in a coma perceives the passage of time. (The "subjectivity" that Einstein goes on to describe refers to the frame-dependence of quantities once thought to be universal.)

 

[naturale]

I’m sorry….I don’t understand your response. As I see it meters are not space – space is space. Meters are an arbitrary unit of measurement to determine distance. Neither time nor meters are physical properties. They are tools to measure the physical properties of change and distance.

These tools - the standard meter in Paris and the Cesium atom - are the operative definition of space and time in physics. The real difference between the definition of time and space is that, whereas you can move in space and compare a meter measured here with a miter measured there, you cannot move in time and you cannot compare a length of a second measured now and the length of a second measured yesterday. The only way to avoid this problem is to assume periodicity of isolated system as a fundamental principle together with a constant speed of light.
As proved in arXiv:0903.3680 the assumption of periodicity as a fundamental principle yields the remarkable possibility of a coherent and deterministic view of SR and QM.

 

[chiro]

I have the feeling that most people see time to be perceived as some sort of event differential no matter if your talking about differentiating lengths with respect to standard lengths or spacetime events.

But I think that all time happens at the same time for each observer everywhere. Simply put, in every reference frame time evolves from that point on so that no matter what physical condition the system is in for that universe, the evolution function has already ticked over.

In saying this I believe the structure of time to be more like a geometric manifold than a dimension in its own right, where we can measure time in terms of a length characteristic of the traversal through a very complex manifold. More or less I see that universes "split" or fork whenever there is an acceleration component and the frame is not inertial. The distance that an atom travels through the global manifold structure in length equates to the lifetime of the atom and in different universes they have different lifetimes in accordance with the laws of physics for that frame.

Although I can't justify it in terms of a solid theory with experimental evidence (and therefore probably shouldn't promote the idea in the first place), its something that I believe however am willing to change my mind if experimental data comes up to refute it.

The model would support the current formulation of QFT and GR but simply count them as a subset of a higher dimensional analog where the geometry of the global universe is intricately designed so that there is an inner product on the space where the angle between two universes is related entirely to the acceleration component of the frame and also directly to the event differential.

 

[p764rds]

I have the feeling that most people see time to be perceived as some sort of event differential no matter if your talking about differentiating lengths with respect to standard lengths or spacetime events.

But I think that all time happens at the same time for each observer everywhere. Simply put, in every reference frame time evolves from that point on so that no matter what physical condition the system is in for that universe, the evolution function has already ticked over.

I think in some ways like that too. But the 'same time everywhere' is at the quantum level of 'no causality phenomena' (eg entangled state correlations) and not at the spacetime SR and GR level where lorentz wreaks havoc with clocks and space. At last a probable time-compatriot in Chiro. Any more ideas about universal time?

 

[Descartz2000]

I think that time is simply a relationship between two or more objects moving through space. We understand time through the relationships of observed events.

 

[chiro]

I think in some ways like that too. But the 'same time everywhere' is at the quantum level of 'no causality phenomena' (eg entangled state correlations) and not at the spacetime SR and GR level where lorentz wreaks havoc with clocks and space. At last a probable time-compatriot in Chiro. Any more ideas about universal time?

The idea I have about universal time is that you measure universal time by a metric of the global universal manifold.

Basically everything evolves according to whether an object is accelerating. What this means is that for every form of acceleration a new universe appears and deforms the global manifold. Time is not something that happens on an axis but something which is independent for every object.

In terms of universal time it would simply be the metric on the globalized manifold which is always greater than zero (and only equal to zero when we deal with the distance between two events that are the same) What you are measuring is arclength from one point in the global universe to another and that denotes the universal time.

So for example I take an initial universe U. I find that a body accelerates for two seconds. At some quantum interval the universe has forked out into a series of universes in which the geometry is related through an inner product which is related to the event differential and the differential of acceleration. In easier terms, universes that have similar event definitions based on the idea that the frames of reference are nearly identical are closer together in the global structure than universes where events are not as similar and where the frames of reference are more different.

If I take another universe T that is two seconds into the future from U which has forked out from T because it has been accelerating, then I measure the universal time as the metric between T and U.

We would base the metric on relativity but time has to be a real quantity and not imaginary. So the geometry would be formulated in accordance with a metric that adapts to the geometry forking out into multiple universes.

Quantum mechanics would have to be taken into account. The idea is that quantum mechanics using the same principle by branching out into a multiple universe when there is acceleration of a particle. So if a particle is moving in a wave like manner it is constantly accelerating and universes are constantly being created at some quantum length.

I couldn't give you the real metric to use right now but I feel that it would be based on what I have said above plus the evolution functions and relationships in quantum mechanics.

To be perfectly honest though I am still learning about physics and I have a while to go yet, but this is how I've come to view time: not something which is a one axis thing but something in which universal time is considered to be the arclength path from one universe to another.

Sorry for the rant: I didn't intend it to be so long

 

[p764rds]

The idea I have about universal time is that you measure universal time by a metric of the global universal manifold.

Basically everything evolves according to whether an object is accelerating. What this means is that for every form of acceleration a new universe appears and deforms the global manifold. Time is not something that happens on an axis but something which is independent for every object.

In terms of universal time it would simply be the metric on the globalized manifold which is always greater than zero (and only equal to zero when we deal with the distance between two events that are the same) What you are measuring is arclength from one point in the global universe to another and that denotes the universal time.

So for example I take an initial universe U. I find that a body accelerates for two seconds. At some quantum interval the universe has forked out into a series of universes in which the geometry is related through an inner product which is related to the event differential and the differential of acceleration. In easier terms, universes that have similar event definitions based on the idea that the frames of reference are nearly identical are closer together in the global structure than universes where events are not as similar and where the frames of reference are more different.

If I take another universe T that is two seconds into the future from U which has forked out from T because it has been accelerating, then I measure the universal time as the metric between T and U.

We would base the metric on relativity but time has to be a real quantity and not imaginary. So the geometry would be formulated in accordance with a metric that adapts to the geometry forking out into multiple universes.

Quantum mechanics would have to be taken into account. The idea is that quantum mechanics using the same principle by branching out into a multiple universe when there is acceleration of a particle. So if a particle is moving in a wave like manner it is constantly accelerating and universes are constantly being created at some quantum length.

I couldn't give you the real metric to use right now but I feel that it would be based on what I have said above plus the evolution functions and relationships in quantum mechanics.

To be perfectly honest though I am still learning about physics and I have a while to go yet, but this is how I've come to view time: not something which is a one axis thing but something in which universal time is considered to be the arclength path from one universe to another.

Sorry for the rant: I didn't intend it to be so long

Oh mutiverses! No I don't personally agree with that, so I withdraw my previous statement that 'I think like you'. See my threads if you want to know my view on it.

 

[Truden]

All measurements are relative, i.e. comparison to a standard.

Yes, but the measurements are not building the essence, they are extracted from it.
I may measure time with the rotation of the moon, and it is not the rotation which builds the time, for me. It only expresses it in measurable units.
The line of events stays intact no matter how it is measured.

speed is rate of change of position
You need two postions, each matched to a different clock event, to determine this.

I know and this is the point. If you don't have two events (rotation of the clock arrow is event) you cannot "build" time. No time in that case

The event is equivalent to the mark on a ruler. The ruler(clock) is the tool, the marks(ticks) are the uniform periodic events.

False.
Mark on a ruler is equivalent of an object.
The relation between two objects in motion is an event.

The thoughts are also events in space, just confined to the mind.

Lets not go into this. It is subject of philosophy.
I actually don't mind to "put" the thought in space. It doesn't change my interpretation.

The time we are discussing is subjective time, i.e. perception, sensory processing of signals and subsequent awareness of external events. SR demonstrates that this perception of time is altered by motion, just as it alters clock function.
Currently there is no knowledge of a universal/objective time phenomena.
We can imagine one, similar to a processor clock signal, that spreads throughout the universe for the purpose of regulation, i.e. synchronization, state transitions, coordination, etc. Surely we haven't discovered everything!

I absolutely agree that time is subjective as a personal perception, but I don't agree that we can CALCULATE that perception and define differently running time, based on calculated speed.

Since we are in the same line of events, "time" is defined by the relation between the events in a line which is the same for all of us.
No matter of the reference frame, the relations stay the same.

Lets say that from two reference frames we observe sun and a planet.
From one of the frames the distance between them is greater.
Emitted photon from the sun reaches the planet for two rotations.
That would be the same for both of us, because it is set as an event in the line of events.
We both will observe how the photon reaches the planet for two of the planet's rotations.
But then the speed of light will be different for the two frames...
The "time" will be the same - two rotations.
You may say that it took too long and I'll say "not really", but that personal perception doesn't matter. It happens all the time

 

[Truden]

But if you want you can use as reference periods the Earth or moon cycles or the oscillation of a pendulum, as long as you suppose them periodic.

We express an essence (Time) in measurable units, which are part of the essence.
The distance between two objects does not change if we use inches instead of centimeters.
The same is for Time.

 

[Truden]

Here's the thing: gravity DOES change time, right along with relative motion.

I'm not sure why you think that's so hilarious.

Can I assume that you are aware of the existence of the Global Positioning System? GPS has to be precisely calibrated to compensate for the relativistic effects experienced between the satellites in orbit and the receivers on the ground. If it were not for our understanding of the predictable and verifiable effects of relativity, which include gravitational time dilation, GPS would simply not work. The clocks on the satellites run at a different rate than the clocks "down here".

It is a fact; not fiction in the slightest.

Gravitation has effect on the clock, not on the time, my friend.
Just because the clock runs slow or fast does not mean that the time is changing

 

[Whoeveryouare]

Perhaps time and space are best described as unreal, as they are in mysticism, and the psychophysal world likewise. These phenomena would be information, differences that make a difference, as per David Chalmer's (and Bohm's?) theory of information. This is the view of Nagaruna, Bradley, Kant and Hegel and many other philosophers, and it appears to be irrefutable. Rather, it is the idea that time and space are real that can be refuted, as Truden appears to conclude, and as Nagarjuna logically proves in his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.'

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Gravitation has effect on the clock, not on the time, my friend.
Just because the clock runs slow or fast does not mean that the time is changing

If you accept that time is the product of measuring relative events then the difference between the "ticking" of a clock in a weak gravitational field vs a strong gravitational field is obviously significant. Einstein supports you more than you may think.

 

[Truden]

If you accept that time is the product of measuring relative events then the difference between the "ticking" of a clock in a weak gravitational field vs a strong gravitational field is obviously significant. Einstein supports you more than you may think.

Oh, my God...!

We measure the time with the orbit (and the rotation) of Earth around the sun.
The clock divides the Earth rotation event in units and is related to one rotation of the Earth around its axes.
It doesn't affect the orbit around the son and the number of rotations for one circle.

Two different clock measurements will tell us that we have difference in the rotation of the Earth around its axes in relation to one circle around the sun, and that would suck
(Imagine that one of the clocks shows one less rotation(!) )

On the Earth pols we have one day and one night for one circle around the sun.
It doesn't matter how many nights and days (and hours for that matter) you had in your life. The length of your life was still the same as relation to the orbit of the Earth around the sun.

As I said before, it doesn't matter whether we use inch or centimeter for measuring one distance. The distance is the same, even if the measuring tool is not precise.

Einstein is VERY far from my interpretation.
My interpretation does not change the points in the line of events.
An event happens in the same point, regardless the reference frame.
The line of events is OBJECTIVE in my interpretation and doesn't depend on anything.
The way we relate the events in that line is subjective (mind interpretation).

Einstein shouldn't build his theory without including the mind (the consciousness) as a main structural pillar of the Universe.
Only in that case we could talk about relativity.