Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: TIME EXPLAINED

  1. #1 TIME EXPLAINED 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    TIME EXPLAINED

    Time is very simple, once you get it. But “getting it” is very very difficult. That’s because your current concept of time is so deeply ingrained. You think of time as a length:

    Q: How long will it take to get to London?
    A: What do you mean long?


    We form a mental map of the world using our senses and our brains. But the map is not the territory. We use time to think, but we’ve grown so accustomed to thinking the way we do, that we don't think about time any more. We don't see time for what it is.

    But let’s start with something easier. Let’s start with colour. Follow the link below to conduct an experiment:

    http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/O...erception.html

    This demonstrates something important about colour perception. What you thought was yellow is in fact grey. It really is. It isn’t a trick. Tear a small hole in a piece of paper to make your own mask to remove context. Hold it up to one image after the other, and you realise that the effect is genuine. It comes as a shock, but genuine it is. Yellow is grey. What does this tell you? It tells you that colour is perception rather than reality. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it would see in colour. This should be a reminder that in the subatomic world there is no such thing as colour. A photon has a wavelength, an electromagnetic oscillation, a motion.

    Next let’s take a look at heat. Put your hand on the griddle and sizzle, you know heat is real. But we talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t, because junior-level physics tells us that heat is atomic or molecular motion. It’s a “derived effect”, or a macro effect if you prefer. Sure, heat is a real thing. But you know it's motion.

    Pressure is similar. You can’t measure the pressure of an atom, because pressure isn’t a fundamental property of the sub-atomic world. It’s another ”derived effect”, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells us it’s derived from motion.

    How about Kinetic Energy? A cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s has Kinetic Energy. Oh sorry. I made a mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's me. So where's the kinetic energy now? Nowhere. Because it's just a mathematical expression of stopping distance. There isn't any. All there is is motion.

    We’re all familiar with Sound. It’s like light because it’s waves, and like pressure because they’re pressure waves. And when you look beyond this at the molecules that make up the air around us, you see that sound is motion.



    Did you know that smell is really shape? Nevermind, because you should be getting the drift by now. We are accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how we experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, underlying things that are there. And nowhere is this more so than with Time.

    What is Time? Let’s start by looking up the definition of a second:

    "Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K…”

    OK, a second is nine billion periods of radiation, of light. Now, what’s a period? We mentioned light, so let’s have a look at frequency:

    Frequency = 1 / T and

    Frequency = v / λ

    Flipping things around, I see that period T is wavelength λ divided by velocity v.

    A wavelength is a distance, a thing like a metre:

    “The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second...”

    And a velocity is a distance divided by a time. So:

    A period T is a distance divided by a distance divided by a time. That’s a another period, another time. OK, so that definition of time is circular. We can’t see the empirical fundamental definition. The axiom warning light is flashing, so let’s look at frequency again:

    Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.

    And the penny drops. We measured nine billion oscillation events and then we defined that as a second. We counted events. We counted motions.

    That’s what time is. It’s counting. One two three four five… nine billion. Mark that down as a second. One two three four five… nine billion. Another second. And you don’t have to count the motion in an atomic clock. You could count the motion of beans in a a bucket. Ping, ping ping, chuck them in, regular as clockwork.

    But now you should notice something: the only direction that is actually there, is the direction of the beans' motion. "More beans" is not a direction. There is no direction for the “Arrow of Beans” to point to. It’s just a mathematical notion, as imaginary as the direction you take when you count along the set of integers.

    So why on earth do we say things like Clocks slow down as if a clock is something that moves like a car? It isn't travelling. There's no slow or fast or up or down to it. We say The day went quickly but it didn’t go anywhere, and it didn’t go quickly at any speed at all. It isn’t travelling and there is no direction. The only directions that are there are the directions of the internal cyclic motion. And they’re being counted, incremented, added up.

    We count this regular motion to use as a ratio against some other motion, be it of light, atoms, buses, or brains. All of these things have motion. Some have more of it than others. And all those motions are real, with real directions in space. But the time direction isn't real. It's as imaginary as that direction you take when you count along that set of integers.

    That's why the past is only in your head and your records. It's the places where things were. All those places are still here, now. It isn’t a place where you can go. The past is the sum of all nows, and now lasts for zero seconds because there is no time. Only motion. A second is nine billion motions of a caesium atom. Accelerate to half the speed of light and a second is still nine billion motions of a caesium atom. But there's only half the local motion there used to be, because the other half is already doing the motion through space. Look again at the definition of the second and the metre, and you will understand Special Relativity. Time didn’t begin fifteen billion years ago. Because it never started in the first place. It was motion that started in the first place. And it was fifteen billion light years a go-go.

    Let’s go over it again. Motion is a change of place in space. We measure this by comparing it with some other motion, and use the term "time" in our measuring. It's a measure, so by definition it's a dimension in the proper sense. But that only makes it a parameter, not a spatial, linear dimension that we can move along. So why do we say how long when we're thinking about time? We imagine a length of time. We imagine that we travel along this imaginary length at a speed of one second per second. When you "get" time, you realise just how ridiculous this is. We don't travel anywhere. Our atoms and everything else are in motion, but there's no travelling through the measure of this motion. To travel backwards in time we'd need negative motion. Motion is motion whichever way it goes. You can’t have negative motion.

    So What do we do with SpaceTime? Ah, Einstein. He knew all right. He found his Hole. Einstein’s Hole. Look it up. Talking of Einstein, let’s look at Simultaneity, and a little thought experiment called the “Cylinder and the Nail”.

    The cylinder is the same length as the body of the nail. At the far end of the cylinder there's a sheet of paper stretched across it like a drumskin. If you were to slide the nail into the cylinder, the pointy end of the nail just touches the paper, but it doesn't penetrate because the head of the nail is too wide to fit into the cylinder.

    You mount collision detector A on the head end of the cylinder, and collision detector B on the paper end of the cylinder. Now with a very special gun, you can fire the nail at the cylinder, or the cylinder at the nail, and monitor your collision detectors.

    From the cylinder's perspective, the nail is a shortened spike. So the first detector to fire is A at the front end of the cylinder. The nail doesn't stop (in reality we're talking gamma-ray plasma jets here) so detector B at the paper end fires later.

    From the nail's perspective, the cylinder is a flattened doughnut. The first detector to fire is B at the paper end. Detector A at the front end of the cylinder fires later.


    From the cylinder's perspective A "happens before" B, whilst from the nail's perspective B "happens before" A. The time experience is therefore subjective to each object and its motion, and is not an objective experience independent of motion. Ergo our experience of time is a subjective experience that is the product of motion, and our treatment of time as a length and a travel direction is incorrect.

    The correct concept of time has to defer to velocity. Velocity is not distance over time. Instead velocity determines your measure of time and space, because spacetime is fundamental, not space, and not time. Velocity is motion, more absolute than distance, more absolute than time. We measure the motion of the molecules of a gas using temperature. There is no time in temperature. And while we talk of a “high temperature”, we cannot travel a “height of temperature”, because there is no height. And we cannot travel a “length of time”, because there is no length. I’ll show you a picture:



    What can you measure? OK you can measure height. And width. And if it wasn't just a picture you could also measure depth. That's three Dimensions, with a capital D because we can move in those dimensions. What else can I measure? What is the fourth dimension? Well, the picture comes from the Wikipedia Temperature page, so I can also measure the temperature. The motion. The velocity. It's a measure of change of place rather than a measure of place, and it has no absolute units, because you can only measure one change of place against another. It's a fourth dimension, but you can't move in this dimension so it's a dimension with a small d. And because there are no absolute units, the units are relative, which is what Special Relativity is trying to tell us.

    And Special Relativity is also trying to tell us something about the speed of light. Speed is distance over time. But light experiences no time, so talking about speed doesn’t make sense. Light doesn’t travel at any speed. It is a constant, because it is constant. And that constant c has its own units of velocity that we should liken to temperature. Velocity should be defined by degrees, not by metres and seconds, because it defines metres and seconds. And because it defines metres and seconds it but a short step from there to telling the children that the speed of light is the speed of time.

    Strange but true. Because when you get down to the subatomic nitty-gritty, there is no colour. There is no heat. There is no sound. There is no pressure. There is no time, not the way you think. Now try to imagine a particle, without a surface please. And you see why the quantum world, the real world of physics, is oh so very strange.

    If you don't believe me, if you think I'm wrong, show me the maths. But make sure you kick t out of all of your equations. And note that there are physicists who think like me. Julian Barbour. Carlo Rovelli. And more. Ever heard of a book called A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein, by Palle Yourgrau?

    "It is a widely known but insufficiently appreciated fact that Albert Einstein and Kurt Goedel were best friends for the last decade and a half of Einstein's life. They walked home together from Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study every day; they shared ideas about physics, philosophy, politics, and the lost world of German-Austrian science in which they had grown up. What is not widely known is that in 1949 Goedel made a remarkable discovery: there exist possible worlds described by the theory of relativity in which time, as we ordinarily understand it, does not exist. He added a philosophical argument that demonstrates, by Goedel's lights, that as a consequence, time does not exist in our world either. If Goedel is right, Einstein has not just explained time; he has explained it away..."

    Time Travel is bunk. Sleep tight.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    I consider the above a carefully thought out essay. I've tried to be reasonable and logical. If anybody can point out where this reason and logic falls down I'll be unhappy, but grateful.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    I concur! But I think it's alright for people to say time travel in the sense of reversing the polarity of movement of the whole whilst having no change to ones personal internal movement. Also moving through time in the sense of increasing the movement of the whole or decreasing ones own movement and awareness to relocate ones self in the greater chain of events. How else would you say it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Whoa beky, you move through space, not through time. Imagine yourself as a metronome. Each tick is a thought in your head, a beat of your heart. If you're travelling with a forward motion of c you can't tick, because any transverse motion would cause c to be exceeded. If however your forward velocity is zero you can tick with a transverse motion of c. Your time experience is different, and it depends on how your motion is cut. Forwards or reverse makes no odds. Motion is motion. There is no negative motion. And no time travel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    The whole is moving based on its prior state. Make the future state the prior state and the prior state the future state, whilst maintaning ones own perspective on polarity of change in state(flow of holes/flow of electrons, potatoe/potatoe). How would you say that in plain english for anyone to understand. I mean your talking physics and I understand time just fine including the observation that time does not exist. But time is still a concept most hold dear and to say time cannot be reversed cause time doesn't exist is really just an excuse to make funny conjectures. There is practicality in saying things like travel backward and forward through time in the disney sense. I for one believe that a reversal of (I need a word for this but can't think of one) time is possible but highly unachievable (life the universe and everything is a funny place we may think of something).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    ps I didn't say move through time I said matter moving through space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    I think time should be redefined to include polarity and not just frequency of movement (frequency of movement in what relative direction where an opposing direction would create conflict with the whole).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    N.B Frequency = v / λ only valid in free space, through the atmosphere or some other refractive medium there's a fudge but that's me being a pedant!

    I do so hate it when people say 'the speed of light is a constant' without the rest of the sentence.

    Yes, I too concur after a very brief read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Thanks megabrain. The conceptual shift can be be difficult to get hold of. If you haven't already, do try that colour perception link.

    http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/O...erception.html

    Sorry if I misunderstood Beky. I don't understand how time can have any polarity if it's a counting measure of motion. Sure you can count backwards, but all you're doing is changing the tokens. You're still counting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Well I don't see how you (Farsight) have explained anything all. Denying the existence of such a fundamental human experience as time, is another in the list of a long line of completely useless philosophies (like determinism), for idle speculation and not much else. There is an arrow of time and you have not come close to either explaining it or explaining it away. The arrow of time is found in many simple irreversible processes like the shattering of glass. The glass can be returned to its original state but only in a process which is nothing like the way it was shattered. In the context of physics, claiming that there is no such thing as time is about as absurd as you can get. So I am afraid your essay reminds me of the rhetoric of Zeno's paradoxes, which uses amaturish logic founded on an incomplete understanding of what it is talking about to produce the most foolish of conclusions.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood your objective, which perhaps you can now try to explain to me more succinctly and clearly in the light of what I have said.

    Perhaps you are trying to revive the foolish claim that there is no time apart from motion. But when we look at empty space in which there can be no motion, the proposition that there is no time will not fly. For we know that when we look at this same empty space in very small intervals of time we get pairs of virtual particles appearing out of nowhere then annihilating. This only occurs in very small intervals of time, making a demonstrable difference between these smaller intervals of time and the larger intervals of time with absolutely no reference to any kind of motion. Sure you may say that these virtual particles move during their short period of existence, though this is not the correct way of looking at this quantum mechanical process, but the in the long intervals of time this is still empty space in which nothing has moved at all. It is not even correct to think of these virtual particles as moving objects because quantum physics deals only in possibilites and the virtual particle can only be thought of as actual objects if they interacts with something else. The point is simply that time is demonstrably real without reference to motion, for empty space is different in small intervals of time than in large intervals of time.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    I'm not sure I really understand all of that. Maybe that's because I'm not smart enough, or my education hasn't given me the tools necessary to decode it, perhaps you haven't explained it very well or perhaps you are just plain wrong!

    I would argue that time is real, at least here on earth. As an earth scientist it is of fundamental importance to me and the evidence of time is preserved in the rocks I study. Things happen and they happen through time - that seems like such an obvious statement to me I nearly didn't write it - I gather this is what you are challenging?

    If we choose to view things from a La Grangian (sp?) view point, as is sometimes useful in certain domains eg fluid mechanics or seismology, time is frozen and we look at the state of things in space only. This is opposed to the Eulerian view where we look at a particle in space and follow it through time. Without time how could we distinguish between the two?

    Also how would you explain entropy without time?

    I hazard a guess that perhaps you have failed to distinguish in your own mind the difference between a wave and an oscillation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Time as motion does make sense for some theories such as Loop Quantum Gravity (at least as far as I understand).

    Since entropy seems to be one of the few things that actually increase over time according to physical law, couldn't time be defined (at least partly) as an increase in entropy?

    (I don't really know that much about physics, so don't take my comments too seriously.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    (I don't really know that much about physics, so don't take my comments too seriously.)
    Such modesty! We are all learning. Don't be shy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Time as motion does make sense for some theories such as Loop Quantum Gravity (at least as far as I understand).
    Never heard of it. Which just means that I don't think this is established enough (with supporting evidence) to be of any consequence to the current discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Since entropy seems to be one of the few things that actually increase over time according to physical law, couldn't time be defined (at least partly) as an increase in entropy?
    No more than motion. It has been suggested as an explanation for the arrow of time. But I have a better explanation than what is really no more than a probabilistic concept. My explanation has to do with semi-stable states of energy. For example the hydrogen atom. You push four of these together overcomming the energy barrier and in addition to a lot of radiation you get a state of matter, helium, which is more stable at a lower energy state that the four hydrogen atoms. Physics and chemistry is filled with such examples. For another one, take nitroglycerin, shake it too much and as the material changes to a more stable state an enormous amount of energy is released.

    These semi-stable states represent the useful energy in the universe and when these states "decay" in order to settle into more stable states the total useful energy in the universe has decreased irreversibly. Now this is probably directly related to the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) and could be called a corrolary. For like this law, where you can decrease entropy locally but only by increasing entropy even more elsewhere, a semi-stable can be created but only with the use of energy which naturally decreases the total useful energy of the universe even more. Nevertheless, I find this idea of useful energy in semi-stable states to be a little more concrete conceptually that the idea of entropy, although entropy is quite well defined mathematically.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    I'm not sure I really understand all of that. Maybe that's because I'm not smart enough, or my education hasn't given me the tools necessary to decode it, perhaps you haven't explained it very well or perhaps you are just plain wrong!

    I would argue that time is real, at least here on earth. As an earth scientist it is of fundamental importance to me and the evidence of time is preserved in the rocks I study. Things happen and they happen through time - that seems like such an obvious statement to me I nearly didn't write it - I gather this is what you are challenging?

    If we choose to view things from a La Grangian (sp?) view point, as is sometimes useful in certain domains eg fluid mechanics or seismology, time is frozen and we look at the state of things in space only. This is opposed to the Eulerian view where we look at a particle in space and follow it through time. Without time how could we distinguish between the two?

    Also how would you explain entropy without time?

    I hazard a guess that perhaps you have failed to distinguish in your own mind the difference between a wave and an oscillation?
    First thing Billiards, the human brain, was not designed to comprehend things that do not physically exist. We invented time to explain the passage of events, which are, as pointed out above motion. Time is a bit like maths, it is a concept to help us explain something else, it does not physically exist, it exists only in the minds of humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    If there is no time then why do we observe change? And how come I'm gonna be late for my meeting if I don't leave right now?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If there is no time then why do we observe change? And how come I'm gonna be late for my meeting if I don't leave right now?!
    Well, he's told you, I've tried to explain, it's up to you to discover (perhaps by reading the original explanation a few times). Time was 'invented' by man to explain these changes it really is just a label.


    I'll ask you a question, can you fill a bucket with time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Maybe saying "there is no time" is going a bit far, billiards. There is time, we all experience it. We experience colour sound and heat too. But we know what underlies colour sound and heat, and we don't get into "there is no heat" debates. All I'm saying is time isn't what you think it is. It's derived from motion, it isn't a length you can move through, and the only direction it has is as real as a counting direction.

    mitchellmckain: Where did you get Denying the existence of such a fundamental human experience as time from? I said we experience time, but experiencing it doesn't make it fundamental. If we consider some subatomic particle the mass is fundamental. So's charge, spin, wavelength, etc. And I can measure the momentum. But I can't measure its time. Please reread the essay again carefully before any more talk of foolish, amateurish, and Zeno's Paradoxes, which I do think are foolish. Make sure you do the colour "experiment".

    Here's a paper by Carlo Rovelli relvant to LQG.

    http://www.ws5.com/copy/time2.pdf

    "In quantum gravity, I see no reason to expect a fundamental notion of time to play any role. But the nostalgia for time is hard to resist. For technical as well as for emotional reasons. Many approaches to quantum gravity go out of their way to reinsert in the theory what GR is teaching us we should abandon: a preferred time. The time \along which" things happen is a notion which makes sense only for describing a limited regime of reality. This notion is meaningless already in the (gauge invariant) general relativistic classical dynamics of the gravitational eld. At the fundamental level, we should, simply, forget time."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Make sure you do the colour "experiment".
    Meaningless to someone who is color blind. All this shows is that perception involves the complex operation of the brain which has learned to take surrounding conditions like the color of the source light and shade into account when determining the actual color of an object. The fact that the colors on the photgraph are the same is irrelevant. But this has nothing to do with time, and there is no similar optical illusion that suggest that time is purely a product of the brain. Absurd idea! All you could hope to prove is that the subjective measurement of time is unreliable, which is not the same thing at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    I said we experience time, but experiencing it doesn't make it fundamental.
    But that is exactly what I am saying is BS. There is nothing more fundamental. Time is so fundamental that like the "self" it is a part of everything we see rather than in any particular thing. You are replacing the immediate experience of reality with an abstraction (this objective reality which you believe in), and it is that abstraction which not fundamental but derived.

    This is part of an old debate between the existentialist and the physical realist. As a scientist I adopt physical realism as a basic premise for scientific work, but I am not required to make this my ultimate metaphysical understanding of reality. As a philosopher I find the arguments of existentialism compelling. You cannot hide behind the fact that this is the physics forum, because by questioning the concept of time you have left physics behind and are doing philosophy for time is another basic premise of physics. So you cannot exclude the arguments of the philosophers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    It's derived from motion, it isn't a length you can move through, and the only direction it has is as real as a counting direction.
    More BS. We percieve time even when there is absolutely no motion at all. Just because we use regularly moving objects as a more reliable objective measurement of time does not mean that time is derived from motion. That is like saying existence is derived from thought. Knowlege of existence may be derived from thought, but that does not mean that existence itself is derived from thought. But we cannot even support the claim that the knowledge of time is derived from motion. It is quite possible to measure time without seeing any motion at all. I am quite good at counting off seconds. And the fact that we have internal motion only means that this claim of yours is not provable either way. But I think this idea of yours is of the same character as the worn out and useless thought that if nobody sees a tree fall in a forest then it does not happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    All I'm saying is time isn't what you think it is.
    Well at least you responded somewhat to my challenge to come up with a better expression of what you are tryingto say with this statement. But you had better say something more like "time isn't what many people think," because I am a physicist, and all your comments really sum up to merely the fact that physics changes our understanding of time. That is at least is true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    If we consider some subatomic particle the mass is fundamental. So's charge, spin, wavelength, etc.

    And I can measure the momentum. But I can't measure its time.
    Particles and their mass, spin, wavelength, etc are all high level abstractions used to construct mathematical relationships between measurable quantities. The only consequence of your observation here is that time is not a property of particles. Nevertheless time is indispensible to their function, for all the mathematical equations that use these abstractions depend on time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carlo Rovelli
    "In quantum gravity, I see no reason to expect a fundamental notion of time to play any role. But the nostalgia for time is hard to resist. For technical as well as for emotional reasons. Many approaches to quantum gravity go out of their way to reinsert in the theory what GR is teaching us we should abandon: a preferred time. The time \along which" things happen is a notion which makes sense only for describing a limited regime of reality. This notion is meaningless already in the (gauge invariant) general relativistic classical dynamics of the gravitational eld. At the fundamental level, we should, simply, forget time."
    LOL I studied both quantum field theory and General Relativity and I am quite aware that in GR there is no "prefered time", but this changes nothing, for GR also makes time a rather important part of the local Minkowsky structure of space-time. It defines a sharp division between space and time in quite a different manner than the naive Cartesian method but I think this makes time even more real and definite not less so. We must simply think of it relativistically rather than classically.

    The attempt to insert a prefered time in efforts to develop a quantized gravity may indeed be the wrong approach, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it either, for this may simply be a variable arbitrary construct to deal with mathematical difficulties, and it will be pursued until a different approach is found. "The time along which things happen" is not meaningless only relativistic and localized for describing a limited regime of reality. Taking these requirement for a more complex conception of time as reason to dismiss the concept entirely, is childish. GR like all of physics changes the conception of time but in contradiction to the absurd claims of Carlo Rovelli they make time impossible to forget or ignore. This is half-baked, amaturish philosophy.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    mitchellmckain:

    It isn't BS. Actually it's what Einstein ended up thinking. He was hacked off when Minkowski grabbed hold of SR and turned it into a 4-dimensional spacetime. OK he was grateful later when he needed the maths for GR. But when he was doing GR he missed the implications of his "Hole" and only realised what it meant when he met up with Godel much later in life. Do you know why Godel proposed his Rotating Universe? Because if we could visit the past, it has not passed. He made the case for time being ideal rather than real, but the point was lost on Wheeler of all people.

    Now stop trying to shout this down. Try to to take careful aim and shoot it down instead. It's empirical. Or at least that's what I intended. Yours is the half-baked amateurish philosophy here, based upon an axiom you've never properly examined. Stop going off on one with all this red-herring talk of Zeno's Paradoxes, philosophical trees falling in the forest, existence is derived from thought, and fundamental human experiences. Human experiences like colour, sound, etc are not fundamental.

    Examine the axiom that tells you time is fundamental. Be scientific. Go through the essay and point out where I've gone wrong, with the same sort of careful reasoning that I've tried to use. OK if you succeed, I'll be disappointed. But I'd rather have that than all the crazy foolish bullshit insults that belongs in some medieval flat-earth religion. Not modern science.

    PS: We perceive time because we have some internal motion. If we didn't, we wouldn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Now stop trying to shout this down.
    I am doing no such thing. And you deluded to think this is empirical, for I challenge you to restate this as testable hypothesis.

    You have offered nothing substantial and I think you barely know what you are talking about. The only clearly stated conclusion you have made is that physics changes our understanding of time and that we agree upon, but other than this I don't think you are in the least bit clear about what you are suggesting.

    You are welcome to your philosophy or religion or whatever, if it works for you. But I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree because I see no merit in your arguments and you see no merit in my objections.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    If there is no time then why do we observe change? And how come I'm gonna be late for my meeting if I don't leave right now?!
    Well, he's told you, I've tried to explain, it's up to you to discover (perhaps by reading the original explanation a few times). Time was 'invented' by man to explain these changes it really is just a label.


    I'll ask you a question, can you fill a bucket with time?
    If it's there then surely "giving it a label" is the logical thing to do. And by the way I'm quite aware that time isn't a length, I've never had a problem with that and that's why I can clearly distinguish between a fathom and a fortnight!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Well, I'm not too good at explaining things I have a primitive grasp on, it's a coincidence that I recently came across this idea, firstly by researching on 'Zeno's paradox' which led me on to the work of Peter Lynd, an amateur scientist. I think I know what the guy is getting at but nothing like well enough to argue his case. So have a look for yourself..

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/denying_time.shtml

    do a google search on 'Peter Lynd' or 'Does time exist' and have a read.

    I think this is what farsight is getting at.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Hmmm.. I reamain highly dubious. Zenos's paradox seems like the old proble the greeks had (funny that zenos was a greek huh?) where they couldn't think dynamically. That is, they couldn't appreciate that a series would converge to a limit. The zenos paradox is clearly just a series that will eventually converge at 1 but will never quite reach there only getting slightly closer each time.

    This is just primitive misunderstanding of the nature of numbers, little else in my opinion..... Bear in mind the greeks didn't have a nice easy decimal system like we do back then, they didn't even have a zero! Seeing things like irrational numbers, or even fractions would have been almost impossible for them and even their leading thinkers would have been constrained within the bars of their numerals at the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    billiards: I think Zeno's so-called paradox is kid's stuff, where the tending to a limit is concealed with a bit of sleight-of-hand.

    Megabrain: thanks for the link. I know I'm not the first, though I'd never heard of this guy until you mentioned him.

    mitchellmckain: maybe this stuff is testable - it means gravity is something very different to "curved spacetime". But I reckon you'd still be saying Deluded/Religion/ Philosophy so OK, let's agree to differ.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    30
    Time doesn't exists. It only exists on worlds. If you space travel, there is no time since you don't have anything to measure time with. Time doesn't exists except in our immagination. :O
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    This Time Explained essay has some absolutely stonker implications. But a lot of people just can't get away from the notion that velocity is defined by distance and time, even though we've had c and special relativity for a hundred years now. "Oh no," they say. "You can't have motion without time". But they've got it the wrong way round. You can't have time without motion. And it's so simple when you get it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •