# Thread: What is the simplest definition for time?

1. Originally Posted by sreeramavarmaraja
How can be time defined in the simplest way? According to my theory, time can be defined as 'change' in any form, any place in the universe. Any type of change in the real universe is called time. It can be changing of state, shape, size, color, temperature, force applied or the place etc.

So we can say that if there no change in the universe, there is no time in the universe. Because time is the 4th dimension, so if time is not there, the whole universe becomes 3 dimensional. Then the universe will stay like a paused video if there is no time. Can you prove it is not?

Tic-toc.

That's pretty simple. Children learn that.

An arrow. Wow. That's simple also.

Is this what you are looking for?

2. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
governed by a state vector
This isn't a state vector at all, it's an expectation value.

3. Yes. Artistic at best.

4. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
governed by a state vector
This isn't a state vector at all, it's an expectation value.
Sorry, that was a brain fart on my account. I should very well have said that.

5. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by TheObserver
I'm not really there yet but I'm pretty sure they do it with differential geometry and some other crazy stuff. We were studying manifolds in my analysis class and my prof was talking about it very briefly.
For a given connected manifold with metric g we define

thus

and therefore

which defines the "distance in time" between two arbitrary events A and B.
This ought to do the trick, no ?
I like how you explained this.

6. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Sorry, that was a brain fart on my account. I should very well have said that.

And now that your brain has stopped farting, please explain, in your own words, what is meant by an "expectation value".

7. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
I like how you explained this.
Well I don't - I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not well explained.

We are not told that derives from the general line element on a Riemann manifold, namely . Neither are told that here, summation over indices is implied, that is nor why (as I assume in Markus's "explanation") one sets

Further we are not told what the are.

Neither are we told what exactly is , nor why the implied sum goes over to the integral in this case.

If all this like just breathing to you, then fair play. But I find differential geometry quite difficult, and added imprecision doesn't help

(Sorry Markus, I mean you no harm!)

8. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
I like how you explained this.
Well I don't - I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not well explained.

We are not told that derives from the general line element on a Riemann manifold, namely . Neither are told that here, summation over indices is implied, that is nor why (as I assume in Markus's "explanation") one sets

Further we are not told what the are.

Neither are we told what exactly is , nor why the implied sum goes over to the integral in this case.

If all this like just breathing to you, then fair play. But I find differential geometry quite difficult, and added imprecision doesn't help

(Sorry Markus, I mean you no harm!)

I'd rather believe that the math is easy for you, but the physics isn't.

Anyway - I assuming most likely to be proper time. Obviously and in the integral are points, which may not be arbitrary. The part to notice in his equations however, is the time-time component of the metric - his eqution is really a simplified version of the proper time in relativity which is

9. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Sorry, that was a brain fart on my account. I should very well have said that.

And now that your brain has stopped farting, please explain, in your own words, what is meant by an "expectation value".
Doesn't matter what I think an expectation value is. That is not what I intended to say. I really did mean just the state vector .

10. By the way, this is what g_00 is. It is the time-time component of the metric QH.

11. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
I'd rather believe that the math is easy for you, but the physics isn't.

Anyway - I assuming most likely to be proper time. Obviously and in the integral are points, which may not be arbitrary. The part to notice in his equations however, is the time-time component of the metric - his eqution is really a simplified version of the proper time in relativity
"time-time" - I love it!!

Seriously, I would thank you not to patronize me, nor anyone else here for that matter. I understood Markus's equality perfectly, thank you, my point was that it was not made at all obvious how it was arrived at to those that haven't spent a lot of time studying the differential geometry of spacetime .

Second, I am aware of the source from which you copied this:
- it is known to its friends as Wikipedia. The fact that I regard this as extremely sloppy notation is immaterial. So is the fact that you copied incorrectly (you forgot to tell us what you are integrating with respect to, if you will excuse my abuse of English).

So since the metric doesn't appear anywhere in this line integral (you do know what that is, don't you?), maybe you can explain, to apparent simpletons like me, how you get from this line integral to the (correct) equality that Markus gave.

12. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
I'd rather believe that the math is easy for you, but the physics isn't.

Anyway - I assuming most likely to be proper time. Obviously and in the integral are points, which may not be arbitrary. The part to notice in his equations however, is the time-time component of the metric - his eqution is really a simplified version of the proper time in relativity
"time-time" - I love it!!

Seriously, I would thank you not to patronize me, nor anyone else here for that matter. I understood Markus's equality perfectly, thank you, my point was that it was not made at all obvious how it was arrived at to those that haven't spent a lot of time studying the differential geometry of spacetime .

Second, I am aware of the source from which you copied this:
- it is known to its friends as Wikipedia. The fact that I regard this as extremely sloppy notation is immaterial. So is the fact that you copied incorrectly (you forgot to tell us what you are integrating with respect to, if you will excuse my abuse of English).

So since the metric doesn't appear anywhere in this line integral (you do know what that is, don't you?), maybe you can explain, to apparent simpletons like me, how you get from this line integral to the (correct) equality that Markus gave.
You were the one who actually came across as condescending to begin with nor are you an idiot, we both know what this about it.

13. Oh and by the way, wiki has a fantastically huge collection of equations. I am not surprised you found that one there. Whether I got it off wiki is irrelevent and a rather immature point.

It is a standard equation.

14. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
The most simplest definition of time I know from my studies over the years, is in terms of geometric time and fundamental time. Geometric time is the emergence of matter and fundamental time does not exist... actually, there are a number of definitions valid today in QM, keep in mind, Newtonian time does not hold; his was a vision where time flows. In GR, there is no time essentially on a global scale (the scales we attribute to the system we call the ''universe'') governed by a state vector which in principle can describe all the dynamics of the universe. In fact, I read a paper recently suggesting that it is mathematically possible to describe the state vector wave function of the universe even with an incomplete knowledge of that probability field. Anyway, this state vector when acting on the Hamiltonian Operator of the Universe amounts to a vanishing time derivative, so in this sense, one can define time as not really real.

Then of course, there is the definition of present time. Afterall, the past and future do not exist ''now'', here in our bubble of the present frame of time. The time that always ever exists is the present time

In short, I don't really think there is any easy definition of time. It's an issue itself unresolved.
Look, don't be offended, but for some reason it is very hard to figure out what you are actually saying. I think you are using math notation and terminology in a non-standard way, making it really hard to follow you. Then there are some things which are just plain wrong ( as Guitarist has pointed out ).
As for the time issue, there is such a notion as global time in GR as defined by the global FLRW metric, it just doesn't necessarily agree with local time measurements.

I am sorry if my terminology is hard for you to follow. I can't help that.

But you're wrong. It is normally accepted a global time does not exist in GR. Time is local, current theory suggests. This aint about me being wrong, nor does this seem to be about terminology. My terminology was right http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-f...imecontest.pdf - it is often taken for granted that a global time does not exist.

15. Originally Posted by Guitarist
So since the metric doesn't appear anywhere in this line integral (you do know what that is, don't you?), maybe you can explain, to apparent simpletons like me, how you get from this line integral to the (correct) equality that Markus gave.
Anyway, I think mine is more special relativity and his is more of an applied general case. I will look through my notes and see if I have anything definitive I can show you.

16. [QUOTE=Guitarist;309084]
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
WHAT?? Operators act on vectors, and NEVER the other way around

I couldn't bear to read any more
You're right I wrote that when tired. Obviously \hat{H}|\psi>=0

17. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
I like how you explained this.
Well I don't - I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not well explained.

We are not told that derives from the general line element on a Riemann manifold, namely . Neither are told that here, summation over indices is implied, that is nor why (as I assume in Markus's "explanation") one sets

Further we are not told what the are.

Neither are we told what exactly is , nor why the implied sum goes over to the integral in this case.

If all this like just breathing to you, then fair play. But I find differential geometry quite difficult, and added imprecision doesn't help

(Sorry Markus, I mean you no harm!)
Right, let me derive it a different way for you, now that I have had time to look over some details.

This part

is just a metric . For time only, this changes it into

If you have two points (supposedly called points on a manifold) Then that integral done is a wordline. Incidently,

then one can see that

18. Maybe also of interest to you guitarist, is that if one takes the integral of the proper time with a delta notation on your integral to minimalize the quantity, you find the principle of least action, which is the geodesic of GR

This can be derived from

All interelated as you will see.This is why I said his case was a General application were mine was the special application.

19. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis

What happens with this equation if 1 is exchanged by f.T from T=1/f.
1 is exchanged by fT then that,s obvious.
But can something be done with that or what consequences would it have ?

If T=1/f it seems difficult to me to argue that this is not allowed somehow.
T=1/f can also be notated n.T = 1 . t (and n=1 is a possible real value for n just as any number n=0 or neg is not possible).

For instance event has a duration of two seconds then f=0,5 t=1 for this but T=2.
0,5 .2 = 1. 1. 1 (or 1^2) can be exchanged by : 0,5 . 2 for this single event. T=2 is the real time then to a clock. Obvious.
How much use can it be ?
Instead of using second as unit (def as 9 192 631 770 abberations of cesium) a single abberation can be used as time unit and function in the equation.

Te=1 [s] duration becomes Te= 9 192 631 770 . Tc [Tc].

9 192 631 770 = Te/Tc.
(Te for T event).

20. You know, I know this might be off-track, but was the threadist here trying to define a new symbol or what?

21. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
I like how you explained this.
Well I don't - I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not well explained.

We are not told that derives from the general line element on a Riemann manifold, namely . Neither are told that here, summation over indices is implied, that is nor why (as I assume in Markus's "explanation") one sets

Further we are not told what the are.

Neither are we told what exactly is , nor why the implied sum goes over to the integral in this case.

If all this like just breathing to you, then fair play. But I find differential geometry quite difficult, and added imprecision doesn't help

(Sorry Markus, I mean you no harm!)
No offense taken Guitarist, not to worry.
You are of course right, this is far from mathematical rigor ! Not being a mathematician I tend to get sloppy sometimes, trying to convey a physical idea. It's somewhat like saying "gonna" instead of "going to"...I know I really shouldn't.

22. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
The most simplest definition of time I know from my studies over the years, is in terms of geometric time and fundamental time. Geometric time is the emergence of matter and fundamental time does not exist... actually, there are a number of definitions valid today in QM, keep in mind, Newtonian time does not hold; his was a vision where time flows. In GR, there is no time essentially on a global scale (the scales we attribute to the system we call the ''universe'') governed by a state vector which in principle can describe all the dynamics of the universe. In fact, I read a paper recently suggesting that it is mathematically possible to describe the state vector wave function of the universe even with an incomplete knowledge of that probability field. Anyway, this state vector when acting on the Hamiltonian Operator of the Universe amounts to a vanishing time derivative, so in this sense, one can define time as not really real.

Then of course, there is the definition of present time. Afterall, the past and future do not exist ''now'', here in our bubble of the present frame of time. The time that always ever exists is the present time

In short, I don't really think there is any easy definition of time. It's an issue itself unresolved.
Look, don't be offended, but for some reason it is very hard to figure out what you are actually saying. I think you are using math notation and terminology in a non-standard way, making it really hard to follow you. Then there are some things which are just plain wrong ( as Guitarist has pointed out ).
As for the time issue, there is such a notion as global time in GR as defined by the global FLRW metric, it just doesn't necessarily agree with local time measurements.

I am sorry if my terminology is hard for you to follow. I can't help that.

But you're wrong. It is normally accepted a global time does not exist in GR. Time is local, current theory suggests. This aint about me being wrong, nor does this seem to be about terminology. My terminology was right http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-f...imecontest.pdf - it is often taken for granted that a global time does not exist.
Perhaps I should clarify that with "global time" I mean a time coordinate defined on the metric of the universe as a whole itself, as in the aforementioned FLRW metric. I do not mean global time as in a preferred reference frame time - I am aware that such a thing doesn't exist.

23. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
I like how you explained this.
Well I don't - I am not saying it is wrong, but it is not well explained.

We are not told that derives from the general line element on a Riemann manifold, namely . Neither are told that here, summation over indices is implied, that is nor why (as I assume in Markus's "explanation") one sets

Further we are not told what the are.

Neither are we told what exactly is , nor why the implied sum goes over to the integral in this case.

If all this like just breathing to you, then fair play. But I find differential geometry quite difficult, and added imprecision doesn't help

(Sorry Markus, I mean you no harm!)
No offense taken Guitarist, not to worry.
You are of course right, this is far from mathematical rigor ! Not being a mathematician I tend to get sloppy sometimes, trying to convey a physical idea. It's somewhat like saying "gonna" instead of "going to"...I know I really shouldn't.
What it really came down to was me saying to you ''I like your explanation'' with him saying ''I don't''.

I feel this is not a reflection on you, but rather on my opinion.

24. To clarify my former post : T=1/f is a true classic equation. Not saying it is truth but true-classic. It is because it involves comparing two rhytms and put them in a ratio.
One from a clock (standardized) one from something meassured on. No fysics real law can subscribe to take one of these things or rythms as prefered point of view (the standard). That,s the same type of relativism as that inches or cm doesn,t matter.

A general notation would exchange 1 by n but as it has an n allready I use p :

T =p.t/n

Single events n=1 and p runs from zero on the clock from the start.

At the - exclusive - moment of completion (and using clock as stopwatch this is registrated in an experiment as event) x= Tn/pt = 1 (?).

Hope it is not difficult to understand that a one time event does have a T and thus - classic - a 1/f.
Classic frequency has a real value then as well. This comes from the clockrhytm (or cesium) being involved in the equation.

25. It seems there is a necessity to write in this thread again since the discussion doesn’t go to a definition of time without something understandable.
Such a situation is quite natural – the notion "time" is fundamental in the World’s picture and as any other fundamental can be – at least in certain extent – understand only in framework of the informational conception. Any other way – what all philosophical history shows - leads only to appearance of next non-tested and non-provable suggestions that "explain" some separate sides of this notion.

In the informational conception ([1004.3712] The information as absolute , more specific [1110.0003] Space and Time) Time has two main features:

(1) - Time is a innate component of logic – it is a rule and states (or governs) that the cause is always earlier then effect. An example – in the fundamental Set "Information" any information about changes in any Set’s elements appears in every other elements immediately, "the time interval" is infinitesimal. But it isn’t equal to zero exactly, the cause-effect events "change – reception of information in other element" cannot be simultaneous; and

(2) – time (in e.g., physics) is a parameter that defines/ characterizes/ allows to compare for given subset of the Set – including for Matter of our Universe - what time interval is necessary for some process to pass. That is a next problem – why in Matter the time intervals aren’t infinitesimal, but that is non-principal. On a first stage is enough to know that as the experimental fact.

From the conception and experiment directly follows that Matter is some well organized simple dynamical logical system, something as large computer consisting of huge number rather independent automata, united, though, by universal informational bond, i.e. by gravity.
This computer works having highly stable "operating rate" (seems having tact be equal to Planck time) and was started in some time (possibly "absolutely long time ago") after it got enough energy to create and move some number of particles (automata).

Just the stability of the tact's period and "fundamental gate’s" length lead to uniformity of the time’s and the space’s scales.
The execution of the computer’s program code is in reality "the time flow". Why the direction of the flow is the same as the entropy evolution – that is again some next, important, but non-principal problem.

The realization of rule "Time" in a specific subset "Matter" is specific also. It is simultaneously "coordinate time" and "absolute time". The coordinate time is the coordinate in 4-D Euclidian spacetime that is rather similar to the space coordinates – a particle moves in this time as in space. The absolute time is a manifestation of the Time as the rule – to step in space is necessary to spend (to step) in the time, at that the steps in coordinate and absolute times are the same.

So all Matter objects, because of always they are moving in coordinate spacetime with speed of light only in different specific directions, are always in one absolute time moment; the film "Matter’s evolution" runs shot by shot; when every next shot is "Matter now", correspondingly former shots are "Matter in past" and next shots are "Matter in future".

More – see the arXiv links above.

Cheers

26. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
The most simplest definition of time I know from my studies over the years, is in terms of geometric time and fundamental time. Geometric time is the emergence of matter and fundamental time does not exist... actually, there are a number of definitions valid today in QM, keep in mind, Newtonian time does not hold; his was a vision where time flows. In GR, there is no time essentially on a global scale (the scales we attribute to the system we call the ''universe'') governed by a state vector which in principle can describe all the dynamics of the universe. In fact, I read a paper recently suggesting that it is mathematically possible to describe the state vector wave function of the universe even with an incomplete knowledge of that probability field. Anyway, this state vector when acting on the Hamiltonian Operator of the Universe amounts to a vanishing time derivative, so in this sense, one can define time as not really real.

Then of course, there is the definition of present time. Afterall, the past and future do not exist ''now'', here in our bubble of the present frame of time. The time that always ever exists is the present time

In short, I don't really think there is any easy definition of time. It's an issue itself unresolved.
Look, don't be offended, but for some reason it is very hard to figure out what you are actually saying. I think you are using math notation and terminology in a non-standard way, making it really hard to follow you. Then there are some things which are just plain wrong ( as Guitarist has pointed out ).
As for the time issue, there is such a notion as global time in GR as defined by the global FLRW metric, it just doesn't necessarily agree with local time measurements.

I am sorry if my terminology is hard for you to follow. I can't help that.

But you're wrong. It is normally accepted a global time does not exist in GR. Time is local, current theory suggests. This aint about me being wrong, nor does this seem to be about terminology. My terminology was right http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-f...imecontest.pdf - it is often taken for granted that a global time does not exist.
Perhaps I should clarify that with "global time" I mean a time coordinate defined on the metric of the universe as a whole itself, as in the aforementioned FLRW metric. I do not mean global time as in a preferred reference frame time - I am aware that such a thing doesn't exist.
Actually, it could be said that it's not the only boundary (the preferred reference frame) but all possible energy states of the universe - I swear to you, this is the truth - if frame's of reference right now are defined by energy states, then the Hamiltonian of the universe (the dynamics of clocks moving inside the object) is described by

Normally, for a system like a particle for instance, this should have reduced to your normal Schrodinger Equation, but in the cosmological case it does not. This mean's that the time derivative that would have existed on the right hand side of this equation actually vanishes. If we are talking in a Cosmological Sense then we must be inferring that this specific time description has both a global and a local feature, but in the global sense it must vanish. You can read on this problem in wiki's article on the Wheeler de-Witt equation. It is called timelessness. It applies to global time completely, assuming you can determine all the facts of your global wave function, which is what the WDW-equation uses.

You in fact obtain eq [1]. from quantizing Einstein's field equations.

27. I remind you all, particularly Ghrasp and SSDZ, that this is a SCIENCE forum. Please do not inflict your wild philosophical ramblings on us.

Second I claim that Geomtrigensis is a total fraud:

1. He used a totally non-standard notation for a state vector viz. versus the usual . This is not a crime, but displays a lack of familiarity with mathematical physics;

2. He claimed that vectors act on operators, when the reverse is the case, again a lack of understanding of basic mathematics;

3. He now said "it could be said that it's not the only boundary (the preferred reference frame)" which is totally without content in any context

4. He wrongly claims that derivatives usually appear on the RHS of the Hamiltonian action

4. He expects us to accept that the time derivative that supposedly appears on the RHS above is of the form . It is not a derivative - it is a differential operator, which on a tangent space to a 4-manifold is usually taken to be a basis vector

Given all these elementary errors, it seems a fair leap for him to lecture us on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

In short, I don't know about you, but I feel inclined to take all this guy's posts with a very large pinch of salt!

28. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Actually, it could be said that it's not the only boundary (the preferred reference frame) but all possible energy states of the universe - I swear to you, this is the truth - if frame's of reference right now are defined by energy states, then the Hamiltonian of the universe (the dynamics of clocks moving inside the object) is described by

Normally, for a system like a particle for instance, this should have reduced to your normal Schrodinger Equation, but in the cosmological case it does not. This mean's that the time derivative that would have existed on the right hand side of this equation actually vanishes. If we are talking in a Cosmological Sense then we must be inferring that this specific time description has both a global and a local feature, but in the global sense it must vanish. You can read on this problem in wiki's article on the Wheeler de-Witt equation. It is called timelessness. It applies to global time completely, assuming you can determine all the facts of your global wave function, which is what the WDW-equation uses.

You in fact obtain eq [1]. from quantizing Einstein's field equations.
This seems completely intuitive. The solution to the WDWE is a state vector for a spatial metric (functional ?) defined as boundary for a 4-manifold which constitutes our spacetime; as such all solutions to the equation do not contain time explicitely, which makes perfect sense as the 3-metric obtained from the equation does not evolve in any usual sense. This does not, however, mean that time as such cannot exist, it only means that there may exist a global wave function that can describe the probability of a given spatial metric actually being part of a 4-manifold for our universe. At least that is how I understand it. Obviously such a functional could not depend on time, but time would still be an intrinsic aspect of the universe since the 3-metric obtained above is only a boundary to the full 4-dimensional metric of spacetime.
It would be interesting to see what happens if you generalize this to n dimensions, e.g. under M-Theory.

29. Originally Posted by Guitarist
I remind you all, particularly Ghrasp and SSDZ, that this is a SCIENCE forum. Please do not inflict your wild philosophical ramblings on us.

Second I claim that Geomtrigensis is a total fraud:

1. He used a totally non-standard notation for a state vector viz. versus the usual . This is not a crime, but displays a lack of familiarity with mathematical physics;

2. He claimed that vectors act on operators, when the reverse is the case, again a lack of understanding of basic mathematics;

3. He now said "it could be said that it's not the only boundary (the preferred reference frame)" which is totally without content in any context

4. He wrongly claims that derivatives usually appear on the RHS of the Hamiltonian action

4. He expects us to accept that the time derivative that supposedly appears on the RHS above is of the form . It is not a derivative - it is a differential operator, which on a tangent space to a 4-manifold is usually taken to be a basis vector

Given all these elementary errors, it seems a fair leap for him to lecture us on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

In short, I don't know about you, but I feel inclined to take all this guy's posts with a very large pinch of salt!
Quite dirty tactics lynching someone, no?

Anyway, you're a complete fool. How can I be a fraud, under what circumstances can I be called this?

And yes if I know a few things, why can't I lecture you on them? Got a problem being corrected or something by someone who has never passed a math course in uni?

Anyway... the whole point is there is no time derivative I explained that very clearly QH. If the WDW-equation has solved for a particle, it would have looked like the Schrodinger equation, but in the Cosmological sense it does not, and has a vanishing time derivative.

Understand? Also, forget about it being an operator, seriously, concerntrate on ''the derivative alone''. If I wanted to take operators, I would have simply stated .

30. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Actually, it could be said that it's not the only boundary (the preferred reference frame) but all possible energy states of the universe - I swear to you, this is the truth - if frame's of reference right now are defined by energy states, then the Hamiltonian of the universe (the dynamics of clocks moving inside the object) is described by

Normally, for a system like a particle for instance, this should have reduced to your normal Schrodinger Equation, but in the cosmological case it does not. This mean's that the time derivative that would have existed on the right hand side of this equation actually vanishes. If we are talking in a Cosmological Sense then we must be inferring that this specific time description has both a global and a local feature, but in the global sense it must vanish. You can read on this problem in wiki's article on the Wheeler de-Witt equation. It is called timelessness. It applies to global time completely, assuming you can determine all the facts of your global wave function, which is what the WDW-equation uses.

You in fact obtain eq [1]. from quantizing Einstein's field equations.
This seems completely intuitive. The solution to the WDWE is a state vector for a spatial metric (functional ?) defined as boundary for a 4-manifold which constitutes our spacetime; as such all solutions to the equation do not contain time explicitely, which makes perfect sense as the 3-metric obtained from the equation does not evolve in any usual sense. This does not, however, mean that time as such cannot exist, it only means that there may exist a global wave function that can describe the probability of a given spatial metric actually being part of a 4-manifold for our universe. At least that is how I understand it. Obviously such a functional could not depend on time, but time would still be an intrinsic aspect of the universe since the 3-metric obtained above is only a boundary to the full 4-dimensional metric of spacetime.
It would be interesting to see what happens if you generalize this to n dimensions, e.g. under M-Theory.
It's such a serious problem in physics, it has its own name, ''the time problem''.... so I don't share your sentiments that ''this does not mean time cannot exist''.... Timelessness very much can speak about the universe as a whole and what we experience as ''time'' is only an illusion. I have read countless papers on the WDW-equation and the Time Problem.

This is why I can lecture you on the details of the equations.

31. Guitarist

Would it be too much to have you believe I was very tired the night I wrote that post on the global wave function (the WDW-equations)... I have admitting to royally fucking up the vector acting on the operator, and that I muddled a few things. You will probably find many ''mistakes'' from me along the line somewhere. I do make mistakes. But you have tried to sway the opinions of other people based on one post and the fact it seems like I am being all ''teachy'' on the WDW-equation.

Well I'd suggest that if you don't know much about it, you better listen to someone who has actually sat there and read the material.

32. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
It's such a serious problem in physics, it has its own name, ''the time problem''.... so I don't share your sentiments that ''this does not mean time cannot exist''.... Timelessness very much can speak about the universe as a whole and what we experience as ''time'' is only an illusion. I have read countless papers on the WDW-equation and the Time Problem.

This is why I can lecture you on the details of the equations.
I think this is very much open to interpretation. I know about the "Time Problem", I just don't agree that the absence of a time parameter in the equations means that time in the physical sense doesn't exist.
I do agree, however, that spacetime in the classical sense didn't exist at the moment of the Big Bang, and that it is an emergent phenomenon in the low energy regime; however that doesn't make it any less real for our present day universe.
You could, I suppose, take the stance of the universe being a static the sum of all possible histories along all possible timelines; in such a picture time would become meaningless since the universe as a whole no longer evolves, but becomes a static 4-dimensional (or higher) construct. It's an interesting way to look at things, but, if one regards just one history in isolation, time would still exist locally.

33. Guitarist,

Science has freedom of tought as first law and tought is more free then nature. Toughts are not wrong or right to begin with you have to give it tought for that first.
Intellectual courage is necessary for that. Think of possibillity I was and am - deliberatly - testing for this, allowing myself certain clumsyness, not to much bothering mistakes (I suppose a lot). I assume people can think for themselve and be critical. If one or two obvious mistakes from me are reason to be more critical on me this is perfect. I would be frightened for myself if people tought I was knowledgable because they can never discover a mistake in my posts. Maybe I exaggerate sometimes but you,e got the idea I hope.

So I,m asking for explaining the meaning of 1 in that equation other then "just one". "just one" is the same as explaining "a cow is just a cow". For math "just one" may be meaningfull but not for fysics.
So try define 1 means asking for an equation that can be put in place.

Then 1 in this equation is defined.

Same as with other fysics equations of a type A=B. This has no seperate math units. But the two equations : A/B=1 and A-B=0 0 ad 1 are two math units. So I,m asking if 1 is a pure math unit it propably will have this kind of a form 1= A/B as a ratio.

Find that and 1 in this equation is defined and we could have a better look at it. I then suggest for this to work with T for one single cesium aberration as time unit instead of an arbitrary amount for a second. That case the clock becomes an event and meassuring on one event allready has two events to use these formula,s. 1+1=2 isn,t it ?

This is no more then a free choice of units. All I want is basically to make the clock part of the equation. That asks a mental step away from the clock as tool and point of perspective but look at it as subjekt for fysicsstudy instead. Is that too much asking ?

34. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
It's such a serious problem in physics, it has its own name, ''the time problem''.... so I don't share your sentiments that ''this does not mean time cannot exist''.... Timelessness very much can speak about the universe as a whole and what we experience as ''time'' is only an illusion. I have read countless papers on the WDW-equation and the Time Problem.

This is why I can lecture you on the details of the equations.
I think this is very much open to interpretation. I know about the "Time Problem", I just don't agree that the absence of a time parameter in the equations means that time in the physical sense doesn't exist.
I do agree, however, that spacetime in the classical sense didn't exist at the moment of the Big Bang, and that it is an emergent phenomenon in the low energy regime; however that doesn't make it any less real for our present day universe.
You could, I suppose, take the stance of the universe being a static the sum of all possible histories along all possible timelines; in such a picture time would become meaningless since the universe as a whole no longer evolves, but becomes a static 4-dimensional (or higher) construct. It's an interesting way to look at things, but, if one regards just one history in isolation, time would still exist locally.

Indeed, which is the crux of the problem.

Of course, there is a parallel problem, that is if time is even real; GR does not have a true time evolution for worldlines. Those who need definitions of past and future for instance, cannot understand time - time is not a real dimension of course which has a past and future. In GR time appears from symmetry in motion, this is why we don't call it a true time evolution. The WDW-equation can be thought of as strictly dictating a global time (as either static or the most likely solution it does not exist). Time however on local scales can exist, but the definition of time as a real object comes into question. I other words,if there was no mind here to record events, would time really exist?

Remember, time is defined from our frames of reference has having experienced a past and expecting a future to exist. In science, we are told this is a faulty premise, so perhaps time, the flow of time and all the essential ingredients we often attribute to time are not in any sense, scientific but a subjective phenomenon of experience.

35. The timeproblem origins from classic fysics. f= 1/T allready has it when you can,t see it as equation with the clock as part of it.
f =n/t has no dimension ([/t]) but it to a clockrhytm. It,s [n/sec] comparing two rhytms. Sec is a rhytm and n is a rhytm for someting else (at different locality).

It,s same as for inches ratio to cm,s for distance : Ratio = 0,408/cm and then for units [/cm]. Unitwise but not dimensionwise. There is not a km space where miles exist in or is there ? Maybe there is driving an american car on a european road.

36. Originally Posted by Ghrasp
The timeproblem origins from classic fysics. f= 1/T allready has it when you can,t see it as equation with the clock as part of it.
f =n/t has no dimension ([/t]) but it to a clockrhytm. It,s [n/sec] comparing two rhytms. Sec is a rhytm and n is a rhytm for someting else (at different locality).

It,s same as for inches ratio to cm,s for distance : Ratio = 0,408/cm and then for units [/cm]. Unitwise but not dimensionwise. There is not a km space where miles exist in or is there ? Maybe there is driving an american car on a european road.

Are you perhaps talking about atomic clocks.... I cannot be sure if you are... but...

It should be noted that the Zitter Effect motion of matter has been experimentally varified for an electron in a unique way: The electron has an internal clock. This was first predicted by deBroglie and his theory was experimentally varified according to David Hestenes paper, ''On the Electron Clock''. Now, I won't even begin on the implications... there are so many.

The other thing I should note is that the time problem is as much a classical theory of the generally large as it should be. This is why this is the ''preferred frame of reference'' from a global respect. These global parameters are in the low energy phases. You can present physics in a model of geometry but not explain physics in these low energy epoch stages. You require very early beginnings, when the universe was ripe to expand away between points in a Hilbert Space at exponential rates of increase. Here energy is so compact and dense and there was no space to order quantized particles, that geometry did not exist. In fact, was space and (time) so compact in this region it most likely expanded fast due to the uncertainty principle. The lack of degrees of freedom would surely have infinitely effected the laws of physics where energy cannot occupy the same space simultaneously.

It wasn't until the universe suffiently cooled down and had dilluted it's energy content did it begin to spontaneously break it's symmetries into matter fields which, according to Geometrogenesis, was the origin of all this ''General Relativistic Global Stuff.''

37. Acc. to me,
Time is a dimension by which we compare the rates of different processes.

38. Originally Posted by Guitarist
I remind you all, particularly Ghrasp and SSDZ, that this is a SCIENCE forum. Please do not inflict your wild philosophical ramblings on us.

Second I claim that Geomtrigensis is a total fraud:

1. He used a totally non-standard notation for a state vector viz. versus the usual . This is not a crime, but displays a lack of familiarity with mathematical physics;

2. He claimed that vectors act on operators, when the reverse is the case, again a lack of understanding of basic mathematics;

3. He now said "it could be said that it's not the only boundary (the preferred reference frame)" which is totally without content in any context

4. He wrongly claims that derivatives usually appear on the RHS of the Hamiltonian action

4. He expects us to accept that the time derivative that supposedly appears on the RHS above is of the form . It is not a derivative - it is a differential operator, which on a tangent space to a 4-manifold is usually taken to be a basis vector

Given all these elementary errors, it seems a fair leap for him to lecture us on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.

In short, I don't know about you, but I feel inclined to take all this guy's posts with a very large pinch of salt!
He has in fact outed himself as Reiku from Sciforums, Manynames here. So, in that light, instead of taking his posts with pinches of salt, it might be better to disregard them altogether.

39. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Are you perhaps talking about atomic clocks.... I cannot be sure if you are... but...
Yes, second is defined from 9,192,631,770 cesium aberrations so why not use 1 aberration T cesium as a real fysics unit instead of this arbitrary number 9,192,631,770.

1/2,54=1 [inch/cm] would that be a problem for some ? :-)

Page 2 of 2 First 12