Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 131
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: Does lack of Mass Create Time ????

  1. #1 Does lack of Mass Create Time ???? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Given:

    The Universe came out of a singularity of extremely dense mass.
    Time would appear to come to a halt as you enter a black hole to a distant observer.
    Large masses like stars slow down time.
    Smaller masses like planets slow down time to some extent too.
    Gravity of large masses can be felt over great distances.

    Proposal:

    It seems that the less mass you have, the faster time flows. It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time. All time would be simultaneous. This would allow for parallel universes because everything is happening at once in the same instant, thus allowing for all possibilities to occur. When the universe consisted of only Energy, all Time was Simultaneous. When some Energy transformed into Mass, the gravitational distortion stretched out the existing instantaneous Time into time as we know it.

    - When you introduce a large mass with gravity, time is created. The larger the mass, the slower time runs (near black holes). Stars have less gravity then black holes so time runs faster. Planets have even less mass, so time runs faster yet.
    -It is my thought that if you could go location between stars (void of mass) time would run considerably faster.
    -If you could go to a location between two galaxies, there would be almost no influence of gravity, perhaps you can get close to a state of NO TIME or where All Time is Simultaneous.
    -If Time "appears" to slow down to almost a stop near the extreme mass of a black hole due to its mass... it is logical that the exact opposite would happen in an area of space that is void of the influence of mass.

    Perhaps this can explain why the Universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate. I propose that when we see the galaxies moving away from each other at an increasing rate... we are not considering the effect of zero mass between the galaxies and how that may be speeding up time.

    If there is no Time between galaxies due to no Mass.... then perhaps there is really no Space either. Perhaps distant galaxies as not as far as they appear to be... The apparent distance only appears to exist because of the influence of gravity within the galaxies.

    It is also my opinion that the concept that the Universe is expanding at a faster rate due to "Undetectable Dark Mater" sounds too much like the Theory of Ether.

    Thank You for considering my ideas.

    http://poconogym.com/mass-time.html


    Last edited by tsafa; November 18th, 2013 at 09:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Time would appear to come to a halt as you enter a backhole to a distant observer.
    But you would not notice any difference. This just means that time and space (and energy and ...) are observer dependent.

    It seems that the less mass you have, the faster time flows.
    Nope. Relative gravitational potential difference can change the perception of time (and length and energy and ...)

    You probably need to learn a little bit about the theory of relativity. Feel free to ask some questions about it.


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    Hi all, &nbsp;<br><br>I have an idea I wanted to bounce around here and see how people feel about it. I have pieced together the following on my own and am not aware if anyone else has considered it already.<br><br><br>Given:<br><br>The Universe came out of a singularity of extremely dense mass.<br>Time would appear to come to a halt as you enter a backhole to a distant observer.<br>Large masses like stars slow down time. &nbsp;<br>Smaller &nbsp;masses like planets slow down time to some extent too.<br>Gravity of large masses can be felt over great distances.<br><br>Proposal:<br><br>It seems that the less mass you have, the faster time flows. It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time. &nbsp;Rather all time would be simultaneous. This would allow for parallel universes because everything is happening at once in the same instant, thus allowing for all possibilities to occur.&nbsp;<br><br>- When you introduce a large mass with gravity, time is created. The larger the mass, the slower time runs (near black holes). &nbsp;Stars have less gravity then black holes so time runs faster. &nbsp;Planets have even less mass, so time runs faster yet.&nbsp;<br>-It is my thought that if you could go location between stars (void of mass) time would run considerably faster.<br>-If you could go to a location between two galaxies, there would be almost no influence of gravity, perhaps you can get close to a state of NO TIME or where All Time is Simultaneous. &nbsp;<br>-If &nbsp;Time "appears" to slows down to almost a stop near the extreme mass of a black hole due to its mass... it is logical that the exact opposite would happen in an area of space that is void of &nbsp;mass.<br><br>Perhaps this can explain why the Universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate. I propose that when we see the galaxies moving away from each other at an increasing rate... we are not considering the effect of zero mass between the galaxies and how that may be speeding up time.&nbsp;<br><br>If there is not Time between galaxies do not no mass.... then perhaps there is really no Space either. Perhaps distant galaxies as not as far as they appear to be... &nbsp;The apparent distance is only appears to exist because of the influence of gravity withing our own galaxy.<br><br>It is also my opinion that the concept that the Universe is expanding at a faster rate due to "Undetectable Dark Mater" sounds too much like the Theory of Ether.&nbsp;<br><br>Thank You for considering my ideas.<br><br>www.poconogym.com<br><br>
    I am not going to read this. One large garbeled text. Please make your OP neat to read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    It was neat and ordered when I wrote it. I don't know why it posted they way it did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Reposting:


    Given:


    The Universe came out of a singularity of extremely dense mass.
    Time would appear to come to a halt as you enter a black hole to a distant observer.
    Large masses like stars slow down time.
    Smaller masses like planets slow down time to some extent too.
    Gravity of large masses can be felt over great distances.

    Proposal:

    It seems that the less mass you have, the faster time flows. It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time. All time would be simultaneous. This would allow for parallel universes because everything is happening at once in the same instant, thus allowing for all possibilities to occur. When the universe consisted of only Energy, all Time was Simultaneous. When some Energy transformed into Mass, the gravitational distortion stretched out the existing instantaneous Time into time as we know it.

    - When you introduce a large mass with gravity, time is created. The larger the mass, the slower time runs (near black holes). Stars have less gravity then black holes so time runs faster. Planets have even less mass, so time runs faster yet.
    -It is my thought that if you could go location between stars (void of mass) time would run considerably faster.
    -If you could go to a location between two galaxies, there would be almost no influence of gravity, perhaps you can get close to a state of NO TIME or where All Time is Simultaneous.
    -If Time "appears" to slow down to almost a stop near the extreme mass of a black hole due to its mass... it is logical that the exact opposite would happen in an area of space that is void of the influence of mass.

    Perhaps this can explain why the Universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate. I propose that when we see the galaxies moving away from each other at an increasing rate... we are not considering the effect of zero mass between the galaxies and how that may be speeding up time.

    If there is no Time between galaxies due to no Mass.... then perhaps there is really no Space either. Perhaps distant galaxies as not as far as they appear to be... The apparent distance only appears to exist because of the influence of gravity within the galaxies.

    It is also my opinion that the concept that the Universe is expanding at a faster rate due to "Undetectable Dark Mater" sounds too much like the Theory of Ether.

    Thank You for considering my ideas.
    Last edited by tsafa; October 26th, 2013 at 12:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Sorry for double post. I think my browser is having some issues with this forum.
    Last edited by tsafa; October 26th, 2013 at 11:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Time would appear to come to a halt as you enter a backhole to a distant observer.
    But you would not notice any difference. This just means that time and space (and energy and ...) are observer dependent.

    It seems that the less mass you have, the faster time flows.
    Nope. Relative gravitational potential difference can change the perception of time (and length and energy and ...)

    You probably need to learn a little bit about the theory of relativity. Feel free to ask some questions about it.
    Is it possible to think of anything without time involved? I have always thought about it and have never trusted myself to admit that when I hear someone mention in mathematical terms t= 0 I go blank. I do not know how to incorporate the concept of no time in my head. Is there another way to understand this.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    I do not have the mathematical talent to prove or disprove my idea.

    I am hoping someone with mathematical skill and a super computer can run a simulation as see if my idea of "time speeding up between galaxies due to low influence of gravity" would explain the apparent increasing expansion of the universe.
    Last edited by tsafa; October 26th, 2013 at 03:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Well, it's neater. But still doesn't make any sense. It seems to be based on a series of misconceptions.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Is it possible to think of anything without time involved? I have always thought about it and have never trusted myself to admit that when I hear someone mention in mathematical terms t= 0 I go blank. I do not know how to incorporate the concept of no time in my head. Is there another way to understand this.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    "t=0" doesn't mean no time. It is just a time. In cosmological terms it is the earliest time you can "wind back" the universe by reversing the expansion.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Is it possible to think of anything without time involved? I have always thought about it and have never trusted myself to admit that when I hear someone mention in mathematical terms t= 0 I go blank. I do not know how to incorporate the concept of no time in my head. Is there another way to understand this.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    "t=0" doesn't mean no time. It is just a time. In cosmological terms it is the earliest time you can "wind back" the universe by reversing the expansion.
    So you are saying its just a marker for a certain point in time? At the begining of the creation of matter or the big bang there was no time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    So you are saying its just a marker for a certain point in time?
    Yes.

    At the begining of the creation of matter or the big bang there was no time?
    How can there be "no time"? I don't know what that means.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    So you are saying its just a marker for a certain point in time?
    Yes.

    At the begining of the creation of matter or the big bang there was no time?
    How can there be "no time"? I don't know what that means.
    So what does it really mean when it is said in the begining there was nothing, is time not included or am I talking rubbish?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    So what does it really mean when it is said in the begining there was nothing
    It means you are reading something written by a journalist.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    So what does it really mean when it is said in the begining there was nothing
    It means you are reading something written by a journalist.
    You never know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    I am hoping someone with mathematical skill and a super computer can run a simulation as see if my idea of "time speeding up between galaxies due to low influence of gravity" would explain the apparent increasing expansion of the universe.
    Metric expansion is an effect that is inherent in the geometry of space-time; it has nothing to do with "rates of time", so I'm afraid the above does not have much meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    When I think about time, I think about change. Time (say, in terms of a second) is a measurement of change, like meters are a measurement of distance.

    If you have nothing that can change, there is nothing to measure, thus, no time. I don't see how it follows then that there would suddenly be parallel universes... since nothing is happening and no instances, and there are no possibilities occurring, since there is no thing to do such.

    Energy is equivalent to a thing, and can change relative to other energy, thus change/time exists and there is no simultaneity.

    As for relatively empty space between galaxies, and other masses, it can be taken as a reference point which changes in regard to other masses. Yes, change will happen faster where there is less gravitational time dilation, so relatively empty space will experience more change than say, near the black hole in the center of a galaxy. Additionally, the outer edges of a galaxy will change faster than this galactic center. So this can, and does account for some if not all of the effects we see, such as the acceleration of the expansion of space and the galactic edges moving faster than one would expect. You'd have to apply the math involved to determine just how much effect the time dilation has, and how well it matches the observed reality, to see whether it is "some" or "all" of the explanation.

    Now, I haven't done any digging into the matter, but I'd bet you, that someone else has also thought of this, who has the skills and tools available to them to perform just such mathematical solutions and experimental data... and you just need to find it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If you have nothing that can change, there is nothing to measure, thus, no time.
    This isn't how science currently understands time; in GR time is a geometric aspect of the underlying space-time manifold, and its existence is quite independent of any "processes".

    You'd have to apply the math involved to determine just how much effect the time dilation has, and how well it matches the observed reality, to see whether it is "some" or "all" of the explanation.
    Metric expansion has nothing to do with time dilation; the expansion coefficient in the FLRW metric is found at the spatial components of the metric only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If you have nothing that can change, there is nothing to measure, thus, no time.
    This isn't how science currently understands time; in GR time is a geometric aspect of the underlying space-time manifold, and its existence is quite independent of any "processes".
    I find that to be a misinterpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    You'd have to apply the math involved to determine just how much effect the time dilation has, and how well it matches the observed reality, to see whether it is "some" or "all" of the explanation.
    Metric expansion has nothing to do with time dilation; the expansion coefficient in the FLRW metric is found at the spatial components of the metric only.
    I don't consider the metaphor of time as a 4th dimension, or as a disparate dimension of time to be valid when talking about reality. Just as I don't view the rubber sheet metaphor as an accurate depiction of reality.

    They are analogies which are useful, but they can only go so far.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I don't consider the metaphor of time as a 4th dimension
    It is more than just a metaphor, it is a mathematical model. You can extract predictions from that model, and compare them to experimental and observational data; as things stand GR is in good accord with that data.

    Just as I don't view the rubber sheet metaphor as an accurate depiction of reality.
    The rubber sheet analogy is crossly inaccurate, and not a good reflection of what GR is about; this is better ( I'm referring to the part on the left hand side ), but also still far from perfect :

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    It's definitely more accurate, and closer to a vector model. But my point remains, that analogies can only go so far, and my understanding of time as a measurement of change is perfectly valid...

    I'm curious as to why you think that time dilation is not a property of reality, though... (that's what I gathered from what you said above).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Elaborating on time as a measurement of change falls into the scope of relativity and also this simple thought experiment.

    Imagine a single "thing" a truly elementary thing composed of nothing more than itself. If it is the only thing that exists, time cannot exist, because it cannot change in any way.

    By adding another thing of similar nature, and allowing for the existence of all natural laws (which can of course exist just fine with the solitary thing), the two can interact, and change, thus giving us a concept of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    But there are models of "empty" space-time (solutions to Einstein's Field Equations) where, obviously, nothing ever changes (because there is nothing to change. As they are descriptions of (hypothetical) space-time they obviously contain time.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    I don't see why they obviosuly contain time (in reality). I mean, I can say that there is a unicorn dimension, and space-unicorn exists independent of anything... but that doesn't mean anything.

    Honestly, with nothing at all in a hypothetical space-time or space-unicorn... neither space, nor time, or unicorn dimensions exist at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I don't see why they obviosuly contain time (in reality). I mean, I can say that there is a unicorn dimension, and space-unicorn exists independent of anything... but that doesn't mean anything.
    And you have a working mathematical model that involves unicorns? If not, it isn't really a valid analogy.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    If I had my book with me, I'd quote Einstein, but I left it at work. "Math can be self consistent without describing reality" is the gist of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Unicorn is an all pervading dimension which describes the relative rise or fall of magical thinking within a given space. >_>

    I'm sure there's a sociological statistical formula for it somewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If I had my book with me, I'd quote Einstein, but I left it at work. "Math can be self consistent without describing reality" is the gist of it.
    But there is no reality which is not described by math.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    The two do not commute, by pure logic, which is also basically math.

    "There is no reality which is not described by math" does not make "There is no math which does not describe reality" true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I'm curious as to why you think that time dilation is not a property of reality, though... (that's what I gathered from what you said above).
    What I said is that time dilation has nothing to do with metric expansion; I said nothing about it not being real.

    Imagine a single "thing" a truly elementary thing composed of nothing more than itself. If it is the only thing that exists, time cannot exist, because it cannot change in any way.
    A muon is elementary, not composed of anything else, for exactly 2.2*10^-6 seconds. It then decays. So 2.2 *10^-6 seconds of time passed, even though there was no change whatsoever taking place at, in, or around the muon during that period in time.

    "Math can be self consistent without describing reality"
    Yes, just like it can be self-consistent while it does describe reality. In GR time is a geometric dimension, and the predictions that arise from that model are fully consistent with experiment and observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I'm curious as to why you think that time dilation is not a property of reality, though... (that's what I gathered from what you said above).
    What I said is that time dilation has nothing to do with metric expansion; I said nothing about it not being real.

    Imagine a single "thing" a truly elementary thing composed of nothing more than itself. If it is the only thing that exists, time cannot exist, because it cannot change in any way.
    A muon is elementary, not composed of anything else, for exactly 2.2*10^-6 seconds. It then decays. So 2.2 *10^-6 seconds of time passed, even though there was no change whatsoever taking place at, in, or around the muon during that period in time.

    "Math can be self consistent without describing reality"
    Yes, just like it can be self-consistent while it does describe reality. In GR time is a geometric dimension, and the predictions that arise from that model are fully consistent with experiment and observation.
    So you disagree with the fact that in relatively empty space, time "flows faster" than in space relatively dense with matter...? I mean, what are you saying in regards to it? Because I keep getting this idea from you, which supports my inferrence that you don't think time dilation is a real phenomena. If "space" is a thing, that exists in time, and changes over time, time dilation would no doubt affect it. If "space" is not a thing, and not in time, how can it be said to expand at all?

    Okay, let's pretend we have a muon, an elementary thing. It exists for 2.2*10^-6 seconds. Well, what the hell are seconds? That infers a clock. That's a second thing composed of a hell of a lot of non-elementary things. If the muon decays, it decays into a more elementary state than when it existed... this is why I said "thing" and not "particle" or "object" or "energy". So, you've completely missed the point of the thought experiment. Try again. The muon changed relative to something else in the universe (a clock) which inferred time. You don't get to have seconds in this thought experiment, because in order to measure the duration of the existence of something, it needs something to be compared to. Maybe this is too hard for you to conceptualize. Maybe you should just drop it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    The implication here is that as we watch a distant galaxy move through "seemingly" equal-distant points A, B,C, D, E...... Point A = 100 years in the future, Point B = 300 years in the future, Point C = 700 years in the future, Point D = 2,000 years in the future, Point E = 10,000 years in the future. We get the appearance that the velocity of the Galaxy is accelerating, when it is in fact the flow of Time that is accelerating due to less and less Mass between the galaxies.

    Does lack of Mass Create Time ????
    Velexia likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    It seems that the less mass you have, the faster time flows. It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time.
    Sorry, I'm not getting it. From the 1st sentence I would have to conclude that because of the 2nd sentence, time has a fast flow speed without the presence of mass. If it has a speed then it must be there, no? I stopped right there, didn't make sense. You can't have any less mass than none. Thus the time flow speed is at its fastest at that point. What did I miss?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; November 18th, 2013 at 09:50 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    It seems that the less mass you have, the faster time flows. It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time.
    Sorry, I'm not getting it. From the 1st sentence I would have to conclude that because of the 2nd sentence, time has a flow speed. If it has a speed then it must be there, no? I stopped right there, didn't make sense. You can't have any less mass than none. Thus the time flow speed is at its fastest at that point. What did I miss?
    The effect of Mass (gravity) is felt over great distances. The effect of large masses is to slow down time. As you move way from the center of a Galaxy there will be less of a clustering of stars... hence gravity has less influence and Time will be slowed less. As you move further and further from a cluster of Galaxies, the effect of gravity will decrease even more. I do not know if there is any point in our Universe that is completely beyond the effect of Gravity (because the stars and galaxies are so far apart). If such a place exists, I suspect the flow of time will be extremely fast compared to ours here on earth. How fast? I don't know, perhaps so fast 13 Billion years passes in a nano second. Perhaps so fast that the beginning of time and end of time are simultaneous.
    Velexia likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    Perhaps so fast that the beginning of time and end of time are simultaneous.
    So having all the mass in the universe will stop time and having no mass will see time at its fastest and this timing issue could be some kind of a simultaneous event..... same as saying I can have all the mass and have none of the mass at the same time? I guess it may be possible if I had two containers, one with mass and one without. Are you suggesting more than one container, er....universe coming together? Sorry I'm not getting it. Thanks for trying, I suppose it makes sense to you but I give up.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    Perhaps so fast that the beginning of time and end of time are simultaneous.
    So having all the mass in the universe will stop time and having no mass will see time at its fastest and this timing issue could be some kind of a simultaneous event..... same as saying I can have all the mass and have none of the mass at the same time? I guess it may be possible if I had two containers, one with mass and one without. Are you suggesting more than one container, er....universe coming together? Sorry I'm not getting it. Thanks for trying, I suppose it makes sense to you but I give up.
    I suggest reading a book I recently read, published and commented on by Steven Hawking, but mostly the writing of Einstein. He fairly eloquently presents his own theory better than I can do on a forum.

    A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion: The Essential Scientific Works of Albert Einstein by Stephen Hawking
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Time effecting matter energy and spacetime is therfore in itself a manifestation of mass. Therefore no mass and related no time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    So you disagree with the fact that in relatively empty space, time "flows faster" than in space relatively dense with matter...?
    Ok, for the third time now - time dilation has nothing to do with metric expansion; it is a phenomenon related to relative motion, and to gravity.

    Because I keep getting this idea from you, which supports my inferrence that you don't think time dilation is a real phenomena.
    You are getting the wrong idea. Time dilation is very real, it just doesn't have anything to do with metric expansion.

    If "space" is a thing, that exists in time, and changes over time, time dilation would no doubt affect it. If "space" is not a thing, and not in time, how can it be said to expand at all?
    Space expands, time does not. For the fourth time - time dilation has nothing to do with metric expansion of space.

    Okay, let's pretend we have a muon, an elementary thing. It exists for 2.2*10^-6 seconds. Well, what the hell are seconds? That infers a clock.
    No, it infers the existence of time. If time did not exist because the muon doesn't change, as you claim, then the particle could never decay. But it does.

    That's a second thing composed of a hell of a lot of non-elementary things.
    You don't need a clock to tell that the muon exists as an elementary particle, and that it decays. The actual amount of lifetime is irrelevant, the important thing is that it does have a finite lifetime; in effect, the muon actually is an elementary clock without components.

    If the muon decays, it decays into a more elementary state than when it existed
    No, the muon decays into an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino. All of which are once again elementary particles.

    So, you've completely missed the point of the thought experiment.
    You were asking for an elementary "thing" that does not change and is not composed of smaller components; I gave you an elementary particle with a finite lifetime. It fulfils all your requirements - don't back-paddle now, after your claim having been shown wrong.

    The muon changed relative to something else in the universe (a clock) which inferred time.
    The muon decays even if there is nothing else in the universe.

    You don't get to have seconds in this thought experiment, because in order to measure the duration of the existence of something, it needs something to be compared to.
    The duration is irrelevant. It could have been 10 billion years. The crucial bit is that it exists, and decays after a finite time.

    Maybe this is too hard for you to conceptualize. Maybe you should just drop it.
    Why would I drop it ? It shows quite clearly that your claim is wrong - time exists even in the absence of "change", or else the muon would either not exist, or not decay. Yet it does both.
    Chrispen Evan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    If you had mentioned this before, it would have been so much easier. Oh ya, and you missed one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    I do not know if there is any point in our Universe that is completely beyond the effect of Gravity (because the stars and galaxies are so far apart).
    There isn't.

    If such a place exists, I suspect the flow of time will be extremely fast compared to ours here on earth.
    It will not be "extremely" fast; it will be very slightly faster.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    So you disagree with the fact that in relatively empty space, time "flows faster" than in space relatively dense with matter...?
    Ok, for the third time now - time dilation has nothing to do with metric expansion; it is a phenomenon related to relative motion, and to gravity.
    So... yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Okay, let's pretend we have a muon, an elementary thing. It exists for 2.2*10^-6 seconds. Well, what the hell are seconds? That infers a clock.
    No, it infers the existence of time. If time did not exist because the muon doesn't change, as you claim, then the particle could never decay. But it does.

    That's a second thing composed of a hell of a lot of non-elementary things.
    You don't need a clock to tell that the muon exists as an elementary particle, and that it decays. The actual amount of lifetime is irrelevant, the important thing is that it does have a finite lifetime; in effect, the muon actually is an elementary clock without components.

    If the muon decays, it decays into a more elementary state than when it existed
    No, the muon decays into an electron, a neutrino, and an antineutrino. All of which are once again elementary particles.
    So it decays into three things, and the act of decaying, and these three objects can infer time. So, a muon does not fit the thought experiment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    So, you've completely missed the point of the thought experiment.
    You were asking for an elementary "thing" that does not change and is not composed of smaller components; I gave you an elementary particle with a finite lifetime. It fulfils all your requirements - don't back-paddle now, after your claim having been shown wrong.
    Explain to me how decaying is not an act of change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The muon changed relative to something else in the universe (a clock) which inferred time.
    The muon decays even if there is nothing else in the universe.
    Aren't muons composed of 2 quarks? Derp, that's mesons.

    So... if a muon is an elementary particle... why does it decay/change form?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    So it decays into three things, and the act of decaying, and these three objects can infer time. So, a muon does not fit the thought experiment.
    ...
    Explain to me how decaying is not an act of change.
    The point is that there is a delay before the muon decays. In that period, you could have just a single muon, with no moving parts, and yet after an interval of time something happens. That interval of time is not measured by the decay products or the decay because they haven't happened yet.

    Aren't muons composed of 2 quarks?
    No, it is a fundamental particle; like a heavy electron.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    So it decays into three things, and the act of decaying, and these three objects can infer time. So, a muon does not fit the thought experiment.
    ...
    Explain to me how decaying is not an act of change.
    The point is that there is a delay before the muon decays. In that period, you could have just a single muon, with no moving parts, and yet after an interval of time something happens. That interval of time is not measured by the decay products or the decay because they haven't happened yet.

    Aren't muons composed of 2 quarks?
    No, it is a fundamental particle; like a heavy electron.
    I caught myself, I was thinking of a meson for some reason. Anyway... I don't see how a thing with no moving parts can manage to decay. That's like saying two legos stuck together can come apart with no forces acting on them. It suggests to me that muons are not elementary particles, and rather, are as elementary as we are currently aware of... which is not the same, and thus does not fit the requirements of the thought experiment. Either that, or elementary particles are condensed energy, and the energy can "unfold/unbind/disperse" and "refold/bind/condense" into new arrangements... (or just morph into new arrangements without fully unfolding/unbinding/dispersing/etc... the very act of which suggests a force acting on the muon for the entire time in which it exists, analagous to a ball thrown straight up into the air, which at a certain point has no velocity) which means it does not fit the requirements of the thought experiment.

    Not changing, was also a qualifier, and decaying, is changing. Regardless of when it happens, or how the particle acts before it happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Sorry I'm not getting it. Thanks for trying, I suppose it makes sense to you but I give up.
    Are you comfortable with the idea that a Black hole slows down time, relative to our time, to almost a stop due to its gravitational field?

    Are you comfortable that the Sun slows down time due to its gravitational field? The distortion of Time/Space around the sun has been documented during eclipses where the stars "seem" to change position around the sun. The stars have not really moved, just time/space has been distorted so our view is different.

    Are you comfortable with the idea that time runs slower on the surface of the earth compare to an elevated position above the earth. I believe "Time Acceleration" has been measured even at distance of 12 inches above the surface with modern instruments and atomic clocks.

    So if "Time Acceleration" has been measured here on Earth, as you get further from the Gravitational Effects of Mass, imagine what it would be like if you got outside the Solar System into deep space... or in the empty space between galaxies. Can you imagine the scale of Time Acceleration where gravity has no influence?

    I believe that the effect of Time Acceleration is so dynamic across the Universe at different points that we don't know what the night sky really looks like. All we see is images at different points at different times. We have no clear picture yet of what he Universe "currently" looks like. This is obvious when we consider how long it takes light to travel across the Universe... even more distorted now when we consider the effects of "Time Acceleration" through near empty space... and "time deceleration" in more "mass populated" areas of space.

    If Time slows down near large masses... does it not make sense that it speeds up where there is less mass?
    If Time comes to a near stop (relative to our time) near a black hole's gravity... I would expect an opposite effect where there in ZERO gravity to slow down time.
    Last edited by tsafa; November 19th, 2013 at 03:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Rather than try to find a real elementary particle to fit the requirements of the thought experiment (it's a fruitless search I think), why not use your imagination to conjure up an inert dot, which does literally nothing but exist, and only it, exists.

    Surely, we can start with this, and continue from there.

    With this inert dot, how do you measure time?

    (If you insist on the muon for whatever silly reason, how do you measure the length of time in which it is apparently inert?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    Are you comfortable with the idea that a Black hole slows down time, relative to our time, to almost a stop due to its gravitational field?
    Are you comfortable that the Sun slows down time due to its gravitational field?
    That's one version.

    Are you comfortable with the idea that time runs faster on the surface of the earth compare to an elevated position above the earth.
    That's the opposite.

    Try to keep your story straight.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    Are you comfortable with the idea that time runs faster on the surface of the earth compare to an elevated position above the earth.
    "Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity[1] and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Anyway... I don't see how a thing with no moving parts can manage to decay. That's like saying two legos stuck together can come apart with no forces acting on them. It suggests to me that muons are not elementary particles
    Right. So, because the universe doesn't agree with your preconceptions, you are just going to ignore the evidence and assume it must be as you wish.

    Not changing, was also a qualifier, and decaying, is changing. Regardless of when it happens, or how the particle acts before it happens.
    Fudge, fudge, bluster, bluster.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    imagine what it would be like if you got outside the Solar System into deep space... or in the empty space between galaxies. Can you imagine the scale of Time Acceleration where gravity has no influence?
    Instead of "imagining" it, it would be more productive to do the math. You would find the difference is very small. And therefore the rest of your invention is moot.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Rather than try to find a real elementary particle to fit the requirements of the thought experiment (it's a fruitless search I think), why not use your imagination to conjure up an inert dot, which does literally nothing but exist, and only it, exists.
    Yes, because imagination is so much more powerful than actual evidence.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Are you comfortable with the idea that time runs faster on the surface of the earth compare to an elevated position above the earth.
    That's the opposite.

    Try to keep your story straight.[/QUOTE]

    That was a typo... I was not done proofing and editing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Anyway... I don't see how a thing with no moving parts can manage to decay. That's like saying two legos stuck together can come apart with no forces acting on them. It suggests to me that muons are not elementary particles
    Right. So, because the universe doesn't agree with your preconceptions, you are just going to ignore the evidence and assume it must be as you wish.

    Not changing, was also a qualifier, and decaying, is changing. Regardless of when it happens, or how the particle acts before it happens.
    Fudge, fudge, bluster, bluster.
    Seriously? What was the point of all that nonsense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Rather than try to find a real elementary particle to fit the requirements of the thought experiment (it's a fruitless search I think), why not use your imagination to conjure up an inert dot, which does literally nothing but exist, and only it, exists.
    Yes, because imagination is so much more powerful than actual evidence.
    "A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and, in the case that it is possible for it to be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.
    Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrdinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics."

    Are you stupid? Or just pretending?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Seriously? What was the point of all that nonsense?
    Well, you were the one who said something like, "because the muon doesn't fit my view of the universe it must be a composite particle (despite the evidence)".

    I was polite enough not to say, "Seriously? What was the point of all that nonsense?"
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Seriously? What was the point of all that nonsense?
    Well, you were the one who said something like, "because the muon doesn't fit my view of the universe it must be a composite particle (despite the evidence)".

    I was polite enough not to say, "Seriously? What was the point of all that nonsense?"
    Give me your reasoning for believing that my conclusion is nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Lets not get the thread closed guys.

    Since we do not have the tools to do actual experimentations and the supper computers to run simulations.... lets just use some logic and reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Give me your reasoning for believing that my conclusion is nonsense.
    What!? You were the one who accused me of nonsense.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    lets just use some logic and reasoning.
    Go on then. Have you calculated the magnitude of time dilation on earth compared to empty space yet?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Give me your reasoning for believing that my conclusion is nonsense.
    What!? You were the one who accused me of nonsense.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I was polite enough not to say, "Seriously? What was the point of all that nonsense?"
    Meaning you wanted to say it was nonsense, which means you think it's nonsense (And you said it anyway). So, let's hear it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Anyway... I don't see how a thing with no moving parts can manage to decay. That's like saying two legos stuck together can come apart with no forces acting on them. It suggests to me that muons are not elementary particles, and rather, are as elementary as we are currently aware of... which is not the same, and thus does not fit the requirements of the thought experiment. Either that, or elementary particles are condensed energy, and the energy can "unfold/unbind/disperse" and "refold/bind/condense" into new arrangements... (or just morph into new arrangements without fully unfolding/unbinding/dispersing/etc... the very act of which suggests a force acting on the muon for the entire time in which it exists, analagous to a ball thrown straight up into the air, which at a certain point has no velocity) which means it does not fit the requirements of the thought experiment.

    Not changing, was also a qualifier, and decaying, is changing. Regardless of when it happens, or how the particle acts before it happens.
    Right. So, because the universe doesn't agree with your preconceptions, you are just going to ignore the evidence and assume it must be as you wish.
    Explain yourself. I'll pose questions to help you:

    How can a thing with no moving parts manage to decay?

    Why are muons necessarily the smallest form of particle in the universe? (I can accept this, whether or not you answer).

    What's wrong with the condensed energy version, assuming that they are the smallest form of particle in the universe?

    How does the act of decay not imply a force in action?

    How does a muon satisfy the thought experiment's inert "thing" which does not change, and is not composed of anything, if it both changes, and is composed of energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Meaning you wanted to say it was nonsense, which means you think it's nonsense (And you said it anyway). So, let's hear it?
    Not meaning that at all. You do love to invent reasons to take offence, don't you.

    You want to hear what I really think? OK, are you ready for this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Anyway... I don't see how a thing with no moving parts can manage to decay. That's like saying two legos stuck together can come apart with no forces acting on them. It suggests to me that muons are not elementary particles
    So, because the universe doesn't agree with your preconceptions, you are just going to ignore the evidence and assume it must be as you wish?

    Edit: I see you have just posted that. What is not to understand?

    The evidence is that muons are elementary particles. This contradicts your ideas about time and so, despite the evidence, you assume they must be composite. Not exactly the application of the scientific method, is it?
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Meaning you wanted to say it was nonsense, which means you think it's nonsense (And you said it anyway). So, let's hear it?
    Not meaning that at all. You do love to invent reasons to take offence, don't you.
    Explain to me what it meant then, please. I didn't take offense, I am curious as to why you think it is nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Anyway... I don't see how a thing with no moving parts can manage to decay. That's like saying two legos stuck together can come apart with no forces acting on them. It suggests to me that muons are not elementary particles
    You are missing a large section of the quote, either to intentionally take it out of context, or unintentionally, and have taken it out of context. I'll assume the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The evidence is that muons are elementary particles. This contradicts your ideas about time and so, despite the evidence, you assume they must be composite. Not exactly the application of the scientific method, is it?
    How does this contradict my idea of time? Also, see the above questions, post 60, you may have missed (I edited them in after the initial posting).

    "The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]"

    "
    A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and, in the case that it is possible for it to be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.
    Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrdinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics."

    Where is the problem?
    Last edited by Velexia; November 19th, 2013 at 04:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Explain to me what it meant then, please. I didn't take offense, I am curious as to why you think it is nonsense.
    I never said that I think it is nonsense. Why do you keep saying that?

    I just pointed out that you appear to assume muons must be composite particles (despite the evidence) because that would fit your idea that "time=change".

    You are missing a large section of the quote, either to intentionally take it out of context, or unintentionally, and have taken it out of context. I'll assume the latter.
    I focussed on, what seemed to me, to be the relevant part. The rest appeared to be you inventing even more random ideas ("condensed energy", "unfold/refold", etc.). It is hardly taking it out of context when your full response is right there.

    How does this contradict my idea of time?
    I understood you to say that time is defined by change. A muon is a fundamental particle. Therefore there is nothing to change in the period before it decays.

    How can a thing with no moving parts manage to decay?
    Not my area of expertise. I don't know why you think it would need "moving parts".

    Why are muons necessarily the smallest form of particle in the universe?
    I don't think they are the "smallest" form of particle. What does "smallest" mean? All fundamental particles are currently thought to be point particles, so they are all equally "small". But if you mean mass, then they definitely aren't smallest (which, I think, is related to why they decay.)

    What's wrong with the condensed energy version, assuming that they are the smallest form of particle in the universe?
    I don't know what "condensed energy" means.

    How does the act of decay not imply a force in action?
    What force? What action?

    How does a muon satisfy the thought experiment's inert "thing" which does not change, and is not composed of anything, if it both changes, and is composed of energy?
    It doesn't change for 2 us and then it decays. There is nothing "happening" for 2 us.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    If nothing is happening, it can't possibly decay without an external force. If nothing is happening, that means, first of all, that it has zero energy, second, that it is at absolute zero temperature, and third, that it can't possibly decay. That's simple logic. So basically, if nothing is happening, it doesn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Can we get back to the thought experiment now? Or do I have watch you chase your own tail for a while longer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If nothing is happening, it can't possibly decay without an external force.
    Why? The decay is not cause by a "force". If you think it is then please explain what this force is (with references to appropriate peer-reviewed support).

    If nothing is happening, that means, first of all, that it has zero energy, second, that it is at absolute zero temperature, and third, that it can't possibly decay. That's simple logic. So basically, if nothing is happening, it doesn't exist.
    As I say, you ignore evidence (reality) in favour of your personal ideas.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    So we imagine a thing that has all of the qualities which I just asserted necessarily mean it can't possibly exist, but this is a thought experiment, so that's fine.

    Let's pretend it's a particle. It's a little sphere. It has no energy, moving parts, it might as well have zero mass considering we're saying it has no energy. All of this means it can't possibly be represented by anything that actually exists. But that doesn't matter for the thought experiment.

    It is alone in existence. We can't say it moves, because there is nothing for it to move in relation to. We can't say it transfers energy or receives energy, because it has nothing to exchange energy with. We can't say it spins, because it has nothing to spin in relation to. It literally cannot change in any way, because there is nothing for it to change in relation to...

    So how then, do we measure time, in relation to it? We can't.

    Without being able to measure time, how can we say time exists? We can't.

    Now, back in reality, everything changes, if it doesn't change that's because it doesn't exist. Thus we necessarily have time, because everything is changing. We can pick a frame of reference, and see how everything else changes in relation to it.

    Time is "rate of change".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If nothing is happening, it can't possibly decay without an external force.
    Why? The decay is not cause by a "force". If you think it is then please explain what this force is (with references to appropriate peer-reviewed support).

    If nothing is happening, that means, first of all, that it has zero energy, second, that it is at absolute zero temperature, and third, that it can't possibly decay. That's simple logic. So basically, if nothing is happening, it doesn't exist.
    As I say, you ignore evidence (reality) in favour of your personal ideas.

    What causes the decay then?

    What evidence am I ignoring, when I say that something with zero energy, zero temperature, can't exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    [QUOTE=tsafa;489517]
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Sorry I'm not getting it. Thanks for trying, I suppose it makes sense to you but I give up.
    Are you comfortable?
    NO

    If Time slows down near large masses... does it not make sense that it speeds up where there is less mass?
    OK

    If Time comes to a near stop (relative to our time) near a black hole's gravity... I would expect an opposite effect where there in ZERO gravity to slow down time.
    In the OP you said
    It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time.
    So if there is no time then how can it be fast? or how can time be fast if its not there?

    I guess I'm not getting something.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    In the OP you said
    It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time.
    So if there is no time then how can it be fast? or how can time be fast if its not there?

    I guess I'm not getting something.
    By zero gravity, it was meant that the mass was pretty far away. The mass still exists, the force of gravity from this mass is just extremely weak.

    By absence of mass it was meant the very same thing I am debating with strange... that things have to exist, and change relative to one another, for us to be able to measure it, and describe something such as time, which is a measurement of that change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    What evidence am I ignoring, when I say that something with zero energy, zero temperature, can't exist?
    The fact that muons have "energy" (mass) and exist, apparently. But I now have no idea what you are claiming. It appears to be that muons don't exist because they contradict your personal theory of what time is.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    What evidence am I ignoring, when I say that something with zero energy, zero temperature, can't exist?
    The fact that muons have "energy" (mass) and exist, apparently. But I now have no idea what you are claiming. It appears to be that muons don't exist because they contradict your personal theory of what time is.
    Please show me where I said "muons don't exist". I don't recall this ever happening. More importantly, read post 67. I suggest you read the entire thing before replying to any of its content. Slowly, if that helps you not miss anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Please show me where I said "muons don't exist".
    What was this about then:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It doesn't change for 2 us and then it decays. There is nothing "happening" for 2 us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If nothing is happening, it can't possibly decay without an external force. If nothing is happening, that means, first of all, that it has zero energy, second, that it is at absolute zero temperature, and third, that it can't possibly decay. That's simple logic. So basically, if nothing is happening, it doesn't exist.
    I was talking about muons. What were you talking about?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Time is "rate of change".
    [Citation needed]
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Please show me where I said "muons don't exist".
    What was this about then:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It doesn't change for 2 us and then it decays. There is nothing "happening" for 2 us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If nothing is happening, it can't possibly decay without an external force. If nothing is happening, that means, first of all, that it has zero energy, second, that it is at absolute zero temperature, and third, that it can't possibly decay. That's simple logic. So basically, if nothing is happening, it doesn't exist.
    I was talking about muons. What were you talking about?
    I was talking about muons. I asked you a specific question which you missed, or "conveniently ignored" (in your own words).

    How does a muon decay then?

    I didn't imply the muon doesn't exist, that would be stupid. I implied there is SOMETHING happening where you say NOTHING is happening. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I implied there is SOMETHING happening where you say NOTHING is happening.
    OK. Then please explain what you claim is happening. I am not aware what can be happening "inside" a fundamental particle. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

    How does a muon decay then?
    Typically into an electron and a pair of neutrinos. I'm not sure what you mean by "how", though.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Time is "rate of change".
    [Citation needed]
    Time is "rate of change"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Time is "rate of change".
    [Citation needed]
    Apparently assertions don't needed citations or any other support.

    Unicorns are pink.

    See how easy it is.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    I implied there is SOMETHING happening where you say NOTHING is happening.
    OK. Then please explain what you claim is happening. I am not aware what can be happening "inside" a fundamental particle. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
    Anything other than nothing. I have given a perfectly logical explanation as to why it can't be nothing. If you can't understand logic, I can't help you understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    How does a muon decay then?
    Typically into an electron and a pair of neutrinos. I'm not sure what you mean by "how", though.
    That's not an answer to the question. You answered "What does a muon decay into?" That is clearly not the question.

    If you don't understand the word "how" maybe you should consult a dictionary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Poconos, PA
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post

    In the OP you said
    It is my idea that in the absence of mass, there would be no time.
    So if there is no time then how can it be fast? or how can time be fast if its not there?

    I guess I'm not getting something.
    In my concept, an area where there is a ZERO Gravity Influence, there is nothing to slow down Time. So Time from the Big Bang to the End of the Universe is "instantaneous" or close to it.

    Now it may be that there is no place in our Universe that is free of Gravity since Gravity works over very large distances.... but in those places where the effect of gravity is the least, time will flow very, very fast.

    Time Acceleration is a proven fact of the reasons I mention earlier with regard to tests done with Atomic Clocks at different elevations. All am doing is flipping the perspective and suggesting that what we feel here on earth, in the presence of gravity, is different levels of "Time Deceleration" caused by the introduction of matter in the Universe. When the Universe was only Condensed Energy inside a singularity, all time is simultaneous (no time). This may be the Natural State of things outside of our Universe. Once Energy starts turning into Matter and acquiring Mass, time begins as a side effect of gravitational distortions. We live in a "freaky universe corrupted by matter".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Anything other than nothing. I have given a perfectly logical explanation as to why it can't be nothing.
    Which appears to be wrong (which happens when "logical" is used to mean "it makes sense to me").

    Unless you can provide some evidence of what this mysterious undetectable "something" is....
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Time is "rate of change".
    [Citation needed]
    Apparently assertions don't needed citations or any other support.

    Unicorns are pink.

    See how easy it is.

    I used a thought experiment to illustrate my point quite lucidly. I gave an argument to support my claim, which you continue to ignore.

    You've got to be f'ing trolling me. Either that or you are being willfully ignorant. Except I don't believe in free will. So... We'll just say you are ignorant, and being forced to remain so by factors outside of your control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Time is "rate of change".
    [Citation needed]
    Time is "rate of change"
    [Citation still needed - but if you have nothing to support your claim then you can simply admit that you made it up]
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    In my concept, an area where there is a ZERO Gravity Influence, there is nothing to slow down time. So time from the Big Bang to the End of the Universe is "instantaneous" or close to it.

    Now it may be that there is no place in our Universe that is free of Gravity since Gravity works over very large distances.... but in those places where the effect of gravity is least, time will flow very, very fast.
    Still not willing to do the math, huh? I think you will find your claim of "very, very fast" is very, very wrong.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Unless you can provide some evidence of what this mysterious undetectable "something" is....
    Evidence: The muon decays after a specific amount of time.

    I'm done talking to you, you're too thick to get anywhere. This has literally gone on for hours.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Unless you can provide some evidence of what this mysterious undetectable "something" is....
    Evidence: The muon decays after a specific amount of time.
    And what happens in that period of time before the decay?

    This has literally gone on for hours.
    And yet, nothing has happened.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Time is "rate of change".
    [Citation needed]
    Time is "rate of change"
    [Citation still needed - but if you have nothing to support your claim then you can simply admit that you made it up]
    Try reading my posts. You just can't help but be like this, can you? Go crawl back under your rock. You have nothing useful to add to any conversation in 100% of all posts I have seen you make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    If you can't comprehend the words RATE OF CHANGE, you need to seriously think about your mental capacity. Which probably will do you no good, considering.

    If I have two clocks that are perfectly equal, and we ignore relativity on the idea of simultaneity, the first clock can be said to change the position of it's second hand once per second. Thus, it can be said to have a RATE OF CHANGE of one tick per second.

    Since we measure all time by such a comparison of one thing to another, and the idea of time is a human construct. TIME IS A MEASUREMENT OF THE RATE OF CHANGE.

    If you don't understand this, you're the most idiotic person I have ever come across in my entire life. If you claim to not understand this, you're a troll. Because I seriously doubt anyone here is this stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Unless you can provide some evidence of what this mysterious undetectable "something" is....
    Evidence: The muon decays after a specific amount of time.
    OK. Lets step back. Your argument is, if I understand it: If time is change, then something must be happening before the muon decays.

    Is that correct?

    On the other hand, my argument is: Nothing happens before the muon decays, therefore time is not change.

    Perhaps that is a stalemate. (Apart from the fact that mainstream science has not identified your "something" and also does not define time as change. <shrug>)
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Time is "rate of change".
    [Citation needed]
    Time is "rate of change"
    [Citation still needed - but if you have nothing to support your claim then you can simply admit that you made it up]
    Try reading my posts. You just can't help but be like this, can you? Go crawl back under your rock. You have nothing useful to add to any conversation in 100% of all posts I have seen you make.
    So, you have nothing to support your claim - absolutely nothing.
    You couldn't even find a link to some pop-sci website.
    I expect that you looked and couldn't find anything.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Unless you can provide some evidence of what this mysterious undetectable "something" is....
    Evidence: The muon decays after a specific amount of time.
    OK. Lets step back. Your argument is, if I understand it: If time is change, then something must be happening before the muon decays.

    Is that correct?

    On the other hand, my argument is: Nothing happens before the muon decays, therefore time is not change.

    Perhaps that is a stalemate. (Apart from the fact that mainstream science has not identified your "something" and also does not define time as change. <shrug>)

    FFS don't get rational on me now and draw me back into the conversation I am trying to swear you off here.

    Imagine, if you will, that across the entire universe... literally nothing changes for some amount of time.

    For how long, did nothing change?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    The college science and physics teachers in this forum are very smart, but you can still argue with them sometimes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    So... if a muon is an elementary particle... why does it decay/change form?
    I don't think there is an answer as to the why of this process - we just know that it does decay, and that the decay process obeys certain conservation laws.

    Not changing, was also a qualifier, and decaying, is changing. Regardless of when it happens, or how the particle acts before it happens.
    As Strange has mentioned, the point is that there was a finite time before the decay during which there was no change. The fact that the change then occured means that time had passed.

    Are you comfortable with the idea that a Black hole slows down time, relative to our time, to almost a stop due to its gravitational field?
    Yes, very much so, since I understand the geometric reason for that.

    Rather than try to find a real elementary particle to fit the requirements of the thought experiment (it's a fruitless search I think), why not use your imagination to conjure up an inert dot, which does literally nothing but exist, and only it, exists.
    Your assertion was that time only physically exists due to change - we therefore need to use a real, physical system to test this. An "inert dot" does nothing for us, because no such thing exists.

    (If you insist on the muon for whatever silly reason, how do you measure the length of time in which it is apparently inert?)
    No measurement is required, because the actual length of time is irrelevant. We want to know only that it first exists without change ( does not matter how long or short ), and then decays.

    How can a thing with no moving parts manage to decay?
    I think you are getting this upside down - why do you assume that a quantum object ( remember that this is not a system in classical mechanics ) needs moving parts in order to decay ? This line of reasoning appears to be based on macroscopic, classical mechanics.

    If nothing is happening, it can't possibly decay without an external force
    Yet it evidently does : http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teac...n-lifetime.pdf

    What evidence am I ignoring, when I say that something with zero energy, zero temperature, can't exist?
    Muons have energy ( quite a lot of it, actually ), when they exist, and then they decay spontaneously. See the link above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    literally nothing changes for some amount of time.
    For how long, did nothing change?
    For precisely that amount of time. More technically, this is an issue of symmetry - you can shift a set of events on a space-like hypersurface into the direction by applying a vector field to it in such a way that all length are conserved; this is called a Killing vector field. Physically this would present as an amount of time during which nothing at all changes; the original and the resulting hypersurfaces are perfectly symmetric. This is mathematically rigorous ( Killing equation ) on a 4-dimensional space-time manifold, and does not mean that time ceases to exist in the absence of change, since the Killing 4-vectors have a well defined and finite norm.

    And btw, I really think it is you now chasing your own tail. Having read through this thread this morning you have presented absolutely nothing which supports your case in any way, shape or form. As things stand, I would see no reason whatsoever to abandon GR ( which specifically treats time as a geometric dimension ) in favour of your unsupported claim.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I don't think there is an answer as to the why of this process - we just know that it does decay, and that the decay process obeys certain conservation laws.
    There does appear to be some connection between the mass of the particle (and that of the decay product) and lifetime. I guess this is because fundamental particles are not real "things" (in the sense of little balls of stuff) but quantisations of the underlying quantum field which can be manifested in different ways as long as conservation holds. If it is possible for that "bundle of properties" to be represented by a different set of particles with less mass, then it will take that path. (Or something.)

    As Strange has mentioned, the point is that there was a finite time before the decay during which there was no change. The fact that the change then occured means that time had passed.
    I have to say (if it makes Velexia feel any better) that I found this idea worrying at first. But I have learnt enough science to know that how I feel about a particular result is irrelevant.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I have to say (if it makes Velexia feel any better) that I found this idea worrying at first.
    In what way ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I have to say (if it makes Velexia feel any better) that I found this idea worrying at first.
    In what way ?
    Just the old mechanistic mindset that there "must be something ticking away". I'm over it now.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Just the old mechanistic mindset that there "must be something ticking away". I'm over it now.
    Yup...this is why you can't apply Newtonian mechanics to quantum objects; we are talking probability distributions here now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    So... if a muon is an elementary particle... why does it decay/change form?
    I don't think there is an answer as to the why of this process - we just know that it does decay, and that the decay process obeys certain conservation laws.
    Hmh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    Are you comfortable with the idea that a Black hole slows down time, relative to our time, to almost a stop due to its gravitational field?
    Yes, very much so, since I understand the geometric reason for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Rather than try to find a real elementary particle to fit the requirements of the thought experiment (it's a fruitless search I think), why not use your imagination to conjure up an inert dot, which does literally nothing but exist, and only it, exists.
    Your assertion was that time only physically exists due to change - we therefore need to use a real, physical system to test this. An "inert dot" does nothing for us, because no such thing exists.
    It would only make sense that you also do not understand the idea of/concept of/reasoning behind a thought experiment. This however, is not my problem. I'm not going to go over a thought experiment with someone too stubborn to handle such a thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    (If you insist on the muon for whatever silly reason, how do you measure the length of time in which it is apparently inert?)
    No measurement is required, because the actual length of time is irrelevant. We want to know only that it first exists without change ( does not matter how long or short ), and then decays.
    Your assertion that the length of time is irrelevant is without reason. Your assertion that it exists without change uses a very specific, narrow idea of the word change, and therefore is moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    How can a thing with no moving parts manage to decay?
    I think you are getting this upside down - why do you assume that a quantum object ( remember that this is not a system in classical mechanics ) needs moving parts in order to decay ? This line of reasoning appears to be based on macroscopic, classical mechanics.
    First of all, I believe in a deterministic universe, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Second of all I consider a fluctuation of energy to be a "moving part". The only reason you seem to be lost on such simple concepts, as seen in the entirety of this discussion, is for the convenience of your...argument... which is about the weakest argument I have ever seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    If nothing is happening, it can't possibly decay without an external force
    Yet it evidently does : http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teac...n-lifetime.pdf

    What evidence am I ignoring, when I say that something with zero energy, zero temperature, can't exist?
    Muons have energy ( quite a lot of it, actually ), when they exist, and then they decay spontaneously. See the link above.
    "Due to their mass muons are unstable and decay by the weak force almost exclusively into an electron or positron and two neutrinos,μ−→e− ̄νeνμ and μ+→e+νeνμ. The decay time probability for muons follows an exponential decay law"

    Or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I don't think there is an answer as to the why of this process - we just know that it does decay, and that the decay process obeys certain conservation laws.
    There does appear to be some connection between the mass of the particle (and that of the decay product) and lifetime. I guess this is because fundamental particles are not real "things" (in the sense of little balls of stuff) but quantisations of the underlying quantum field which can be manifested in different ways as long as conservation holds. If it is possible for that "bundle of properties" to be represented by a different set of particles with less mass, then it will take that path. (Or something.)
    That's pretty much exactly what I said here: "Either that, or elementary particles are condensed energy, and the energy can "unfold/unbind/disperse" and "refold/bind/condense" into new arrangements... (or just morph into new arrangements without fully unfolding/unbinding/dispersing/etc...

    Except I used slightly more direct language. Otherwise, the gist is the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is time related to mass?
    By One beer in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: June 24th, 2013, 09:25 AM
  2. Time travel/Destruction of mass
    By Bill Nye Time Traveller in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2012, 03:42 AM
  3. mass increase and time dilation
    By ray in forum Physics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 19th, 2011, 06:15 PM
  4. Can Black holes create space time?
    By kevinmorais in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2010, 04:35 AM
  5. Quasar jet stream data can Black holes create space time?
    By kevinmorais in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 20th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •