Does The Caesium Atom Exist In Time ?

[xyz]

OK. I agree with you, in a certain sense.

 

If you mean that we should not confuse our measurement of a thing, with the thing itself, that is a perfectly reasonable statement.

 

When it comes to measuring time, we need to rely on some process of change in matter and energy, whether it be an atomic clock or a revolving Earth, for us to be able to distinguish one moment from the next. Are we measuring time itself, or just the change in matter and energy?

 

I don’t pretend to be able to answer that question but I will offer an opinion (of course): Only if we define time as a change in matter and energy, are we actually measuring time when we measure a change in matter and energy. Of course, that is a tautology, but it is a useful one in that it allows us to pretend we can make sense of what time is, and make use of it.

 

It may well be that time is something else entirely, or possibly even nothing at all, and all we really have is matter and energy; and our concept of time is just a result of our imaginative minds.

 

You are certainly not alone in thinking like this! Ruminations about the nature of time have been going on . . . . .well, for a very long time indeed. German philosopher Emmanuel Kant was convinced that our perceptions of reality, including the concepts of space and time, are very different from how they exist in reality, or even if they do exist in reality.

 

Personally, I think these questions are best left to the philosophers. Without an agreement on what time is, and what-time-is-it, it is impossible for us to coordinate well enough to do any useful science, or even make a lunch date.

 

However, scientists are now cutting in on the philosopher’s turf. Take Julian Barbour, for example:

 

 

“If you try to get your hands on time, it’s always slipping through your fingers,” says Barbour. “People are sure time is there, but they can’t get hold of it. My feeling is that they can’t get hold of it because it isn’t there at all.”

 

Is that all you are saying? If so, I don't find it very controversial or particularly interesting unless you have your own theory of what time "really" is. Now, that would be interesting!

A very good and honest post, that is exactly what I am saying. 

 

''If you mean that we should not confuse our measurement of a thing, with the thing itself, that is a perfectly reasonable statement.''

 

 

 

When measuring the rate of the Caesium atom, that is what we are doing, measuring the rate of the Caesium , most forums and members seem to think the thing we measure is time based on a change in matter and energy rate. However that is not so, the Caesium and the Caesium rate exist in time. 

 

I do have a ''theory'' what time actually is, but I find it difficult to put into words. 

 

To explain 0t is also infinite t , is really hard. To explain that nothing is something is also hard. 

 

 

added- Craig's earlier reply

 

''All atoms, and further, all particles, “exist in time”, because their positions at a given instance can be described.''

 

 

And all wavelengths emitted exist in time travelling through space-time.

 

 

Interwoven means exactly that,space and time are one, the same thing , a dimensional whole that is without boundaries.  

 

 

Understand this - ''you'' are timing things relative to time. 

 

 

space-time is the reference frame whole, relatively ''stationary''.  

 

If space and time were observed to be moving, it would be impossible to tell which observer was moving. In simple terms, if the space that surrounds the Earth was seen moving , the earth would think they were standing still and not rotating.

Edited January 5, 2017 by xyz

[xyz]

I will explain in this separate post what ''you'' are actually doing. 

 

 

You are measuring the rate of the Caesium atom relative to time.  The time of 1's is independent of the Caesium atom or rate, 1.s  will pass by even if the rate of the Caesium  was 0. Time is constant , there is no gaps in continuous time line. see below example of time 

 

 

time = ___________________________________________________________________________   Increments of time are adjoined, the next increment instantly follows the previous increment. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by xyz