Time Is Not A Physical Entity

[Moronium]

I think I can sort of see what may be the problem. Time is like length or distance. It is a dimension by which we measure physical things: an axis of a coordinate system for relating objects and events in the physical world, but in itself abstract.

 

Distance or length only becomes tangible when spoken of in relation to physical manifestations  - objects, fields etc. The same goes for time. 

 

Is that fair?

 

Yes, it's fair.  Buffy and learningscience are talking past each other.  They're talking about two different things.  I agree with LS and disagree with Buffy.  Not that anything Buffy says is "wrong" insofar as it goes.  It's just that she's ignoring the distinction that LS is making here.

 

These two statements may superficially sound the same, but they are in fact completely different:

 

1.  At increased speeds the ticking rate of clocks shows down. (clock retardation)

2.  At increased speeds time is dilated for the observer. (time dilation)

 

I agree with 1 and reject 2.  "Time" is an abstract mental construct, no more, no less.  We abstract the intangible concept of "time" from concrete examples, but the examples are not the concept.

 

Time does not physically "stretch" or get larger with speed, but clocks do tick at a slower rate.

 

Newton did a good job of distinguishing mathematical or true time, the concept, from the measurement of duration by various means,  which he called "relative time"  or "apparent time,"I think:

 

 Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year...

 

Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correction of the apparent time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal, and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality that they may measure the celestial motions by a more accurate time. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is not liable to any change. The duration or perseverance of the existence of things remains the same, whether the motions are swift or slow, or none at all: and therefore this duration ought to be distinguished from what are only sensible measures thereof; and from which we deduce it, by means of the astronomical equation

 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html. 

 

 

Time, as a concept (as opposed to attempts to physically measure it by change) is an idealization, not a "thing."  As Newton notes, it's possible that there is no material process which accurately embodies our concept of it.

 

In Platonic terms, Newton's "true time" might be called the "form of time."  It is not something that can be found lying around somewhere.  It is not a physical object. It doesn't exist in the "apparent world," only in the realm of forms.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Around 1905, Einstein came along and declared that "absolute time" did not exist.  At the time he was, like Buffy seems to be, a philosophical disciple of the positivist Ernst Mach.  He equated our measurement of time with time itself. He basically meant that we had no way of ascertaining "absolute time."

 

But Einstein didn't say anything Newton hadn't already said. "It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured," Newton said.  Nor did anything Einstein said cause absolute time to cease to exist.  The concept of time was (and is) unaffected by clocks or any other objects/events in the physical world.  It never resided in the physical world to begin with, so Einstein's observation that it couldn't be found there did nothing  to eliminate or affect its existence (as a concept).

 

Without this concept (as well as the concepts of absolute space and absolute motion) Newton could never have developed his laws of mechanics (derived from his three laws of motion). Einstein couldn't either.

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Time is classed as an observable in my theory..

 

 

Yeah?  What's time look like, exactly?  Big Ben, maybe?

[Moronium]

Read what I said, it explains how it becomes physical.

 Maybe you should read what Newton said about the difference between true time, and time as we measure it (relative, or apparent time, he called it).

 

If you're saying something like "time becomes observable" if we manufacture a clock, then Newton would say you're wrong.  A clock is observable, but it is not time.  We can observe the hands on a clock moving, but we are not observing "time" when we do that.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 I am well aware of how Newton viewed time and it was wrong.

  Since your knowledge of the "concept of time" is so superior to that of the ignorant Issac Newton, then maybe you can explain precisely how and why his understanding is WRONG, eh?

 

Then again, maybe not, since you have made to attempt to do so.

 

 

 

Maybe you should read what Newton said about true time

 

 

 

 

Maybe you should stop assuming that people don't know things.

 

 

 

I assumed you had read it, actually, if for no other reason than that I cited and quoted it, just a post or two back.  I shouldn't have said "read."  What I should have said was "Maybe you should read and try to actually understand what Newton said about true time."

 

That said, you're right.  At this point I am assuming that you don't actually understand the distinction he was making.  But, again, I will await your proof that the distinction is WRONG.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Read what I said, it explains how it becomes physical.

 

The OP claims that "Time Is Not A Physical Entity."  I agree with him.

 

Your claim is that it "becomes physical," yet you don't explain how that "becoming" happens.

 

What bothers you, to no end, is that anyone would have the gall to actually question your pronouncements, rather than say "As always, Omniscient One, you are absolutely correct!!"

[Moronium]

Time is classed as an observable in my theory which means there is a physical aspect to it....in relativity, time manifests itself an observable in three dimensional space 

 

This was not the question raised, but since you brought up "your theory," I will quote excerpts from the Editors of Scientific American who published a series entitled  "A Question of Time The Ultimate Paradox" which included a number of book reviews:

 

 

Though many people assume Einstein’s relativity in some way proves time exists (and is merged with space), in fact very few people seem to actually check the source paper “on the electrodynamics of moving bodies” itself.   If you do so, you may  find Relativity itself only actually observes that there is “movement”...

 

[Quotations from Einstien's paper omitted here]

 

-IF a thing called time exists, THEN a rotating point is a useful indicator, but a rotating pointer does NOT prove there is a past, a future, or a thing called time that flows etc...“Relativity shows us that matter is moving and interacting in all directions more slowly on moving trains, and in areas of high gravity...but his in no way proves there is a also a thing called time that exists and ‘flow; more slowly”.

 

 

This is basically what Newton said, too.

 

https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/comments-on-time-books/a-question-of-time-the-ultimate-paradox

 

I believe that time does indeed "exist," but only in the mind as a conceptual abstraction, not as a "physical thing," as you claim.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

"Outdated," you say?

 

1.  You still haven't shown that you have the least bit of understanding of what Newton meant.  The concept of time, as a concept, was not affected one bit by anything Einstein, or any physicist since, said.

 

2.  Modern physicists have, as I have shown by quoting one expert after another in the course of various threads, accepted the CMB as a preferred "cosmic rest frame,"  By doing so they are positing what is theoretically an "absolute" (not relative) time. Personally, I wouldn't call current 21st century views held by Nobel Prize winners and the mainstream "outdated."  But even this acceptance does not affect Newton's viewpoint that time is NOT a physical thing.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'm not getting dragged into your nonsense.

 

 

Yeah, that's kinda what I thought, eh?

 

....maybe you can explain precisely how and why [Newton's] understanding is WRONG, eh?  Then again, maybe not, since you have made no attempt to do so.

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Your name really fits the bill. Only a moron would think that Newtons views of time are actually relevant today - Newton's theory was superceded by the understanding of time in relativity, another subject you fail to understand.

  Heh, yeah, right, eh?

 

Unlike Newton and Einstein, you don't have a philosophical bone in your body, Six.  You don't even know what Newton is saying.

 

If you only knew 1/10 as much about SR as you think you do, you would be in a position to school Albert himself on the topic.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Bye.

[OceanBreeze]

 Maybe you should read what Newton said about the difference between true time, and time as we measure it (relative, or apparent time, he called it).

 

If you're saying something like "time becomes observable" if we manufacture a clock, then Newton would say you're wrong.  A clock is observable, but it is not time.  We can observe the hands on a clock moving, but we are not observing "time" when we do that.

 

I always find it useful when discussing what Newton said and thought, to provide a link:

 

And a quote also helps:

 

5.1 Arguments for Absolute Time

Paragraph V appeals to the fact that astronomy distinguishes between absolute and relative time in its use of the so-called equation of time. This serves to correct for inequalities in the commonly adopted standard of time, the solar day, which most people mistakenly believe to be uniform. The solar day, defined as the period of time it takes the sun to return to zenith, varies by as much as 20 minutes over the course of a year. The standard of correction in the equation of time used in Ptolemaic astronomy was based upon the assumption that the sidereal day—the period of time it takes a fixed star to return to zenith—is constant, because the celestial sphere on which the fixed stars are located should not be assumed to speed up and slow down. With the demise of the Ptolemaic system and Aristotelian cosmology, this rationale was no longer compelling, and at least some astronomers, most notably Kepler, called into doubt whether the rate of rotation of the earth remained constant over the course of the year. (Kepler considered that its rotation would be faster when closer to the sun due to an excitatory effect of the sun.) Thus, the issue of the correct measure of time occupied considerable attention in 17th Century astronomy, especially because the ability to measure the rate of rotation of the earth is equivalent to the problem of determining longitude, which, for sea-faring nations, was critical for navigation (and hence military and economic dominance). Huygens' pendulum clock provided the first terrestrial candidate for a decently accurate measure of uniform time. Newton mentions this, as well as the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter, an alternative method based on Kepler's period law.

The invocation of the need for an equation of time in astronomy is not just an appeal to a well entrenched scientific practice. In the course of his discussion, Newton explains why he thinks the need is justified. Although he will argue in Book III of the Principia that the diurnal rotation of the earth is uniform, this is a contingent fact. It could have been otherwise. Indeed, it could have been that there are no uniform motions to serve as accurate measures of time. The reason is that all motion is subject to being accelerated or retarded (by the application of external forces). In contrast, absolute time (which is nothing other than duration or the perseverance of the existence of things) remains the same, whether the motions be be swift, slow, or null.

 

Now we can have an informed discussion.  

[Moronium]

I always find it useful when discussing what Newton said and thought, to provide a link:

 

And a quote also helps:

 

Now we can have an informed discussion.  

 

 

I guess you skipped my post #18, eh?

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30719-time-is-not-a-physical-entity/page-2

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

With respect to the separate, but closely related, topic of absolute motion, it is fashionable to say that Einstein "corrected" Newton's mistaken notions about absolute motion.  But Einstein,  like Newton himself, merely rejected the possibility of detecting an absolutely motionless object which could be used as a standard for imputing absolute motion to bodies moving relative to it.  He was agreeing, not disagreeing, with Newton on that issue.  Newton had already said, for example:

 

It is a property of rest, that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but impossible to know [scire], from the position of bodies to one another in our regions, whether any of these do keep the same position to that remote body; it follows that absolute rest cannot be determined [definiri] from the position of bodies in our regions.

 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html

 

Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Lorentz, Poincare, and virtually everyone else agreed that absolute rest (and therefore absolute speed) could not be detected.  Newton thought that, theoretically speaking, a motionless point would exist at the center of all the mass in the universe, but readily conceded that we could never determine what that point is.

 

Einstein never said that absolute motion was "impossible."  He wasn't stupid.  Like Newton, he merely claimed we had no way of detecting it by examining relative motion.  But epistemology is not ontology.

 

Popeye's cite elaborates on what Newton is getting at in the quote I just pasted:

 

[Newton's] Conclusion: True rest cannot be defined simply in terms of position relative to other bodies in the local vicinity.

 

[Newton's] Reasoning: Suppose there were a body somewhere in the universe absolutely at rest, say far away, in the region of the fixed stars, or even farther. (Whether or not that body might ever be observed doesn't enter into what follows.) Clearly it is impossible to know just from considering the positions of bodies in our region relative to one another whether any of these latter bodies maintains a fixed position with respect to that hypothetical distant body. To amplify, let B be one of the local bodies, C the relative configuration over time of the set of local bodies, and A the far distant body at absolute rest. The specification of C alone fails to establish the position of B relative to A over time. In particular, C fails to establish whether B is relatively at rest with respect A, which, by the property stated above, is a necessary condition for B to be absolutely at rest. Hence, specification of the local configuration C underdetermines whether or not B is at absolute rest. Thus the conclusion: it is impossible to define what it is for a body such as B to be at absolute rest [i.e., to give necessary and sufficient conditions for when it is that B is at rest] simply in terms of how B fits into the local configuration C.

 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/#5.1

 

But one should be careful here to clarify what is meant by words like "absolute" in this context.  Defining "absolute motion" as motion relative to a point known to be at rest is an entirely different meaning of "absolute" than the physics definition where "absolute" merely means "not frame dependent."  Absolute speed cannot be detected, because absolute rest cannot be.  But absolute motion, in the sense physics defines it, is acknowledged every day.  Theoretical physics holds that accelerating motion is "absolute" motion, in the scientific sense, for example.  Likewise, GR says that gravitational time dilation is absolute, not relative.

 

One additional observation:  Newton, Einstein, et al, were completely correct to say that "absolute rest" could not be detected with the technology available to them.  Modern physics tends to disagree.  For a number of empirical reasons, gleaned from extensive data gathered with respect to the CMB, the CMB is now posited as a preferred reference frame from which the absolute motion (including both speed and direction) of the earth, the sun, the galaxy, etc. can be detected, as a practical matter.

 

In essence then, for purposes of analyzing absolute versus relative motion, the CMB serves the same purpose for modern physics that "absolute space" did for Newton and that the motionless ether did for Lorentz.

 

I certainly don't expect posters like Six to grasp any of this, but others might.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

For a number of empirical reasons, gleaned from extensive data gathered with respect to the CMB, the CMB is now posited as a preferred reference frame from which the absolute motion (including both speed and direction) of the earth, the sun, the galaxy, etc. can be detected, as a practical matter.

 

In essence then, for purposes of analyzing absolute versus relative motion, the CMB serves the same purpose for modern physics that "absolute space" did for Newton and that the motionless ether did for Lorentz.

 

I certainly don't expect posters like Six to grasp any of this, but others might.

 

I have cited a number of authorities in support of this statement. For convenience, I will re-post part of one (of many) posts I have made in other threads to demonstrate this:

 

Posted 16 April 2018 - 03:08 AM

 

You've probably never heard of Lee Smolin, because he's just another "nobody," but here's his take according to a reviewer of one of  his books:

 

 

 

Lee Smolin, in his book “Time Reborn”, develops the thesis that “time’ has been gradually removed from physics with the final denouement for “time” being the creation of Special and General Relativity...Smolin goes on to explain why this removal of “time” from physics has been a major obstacle to advancement in certain areas of physics.

 

Smolin concluded that he must give up relative simultaneity and adopt “preferred global time” and a preferred state of rest. He did this because observations of receding galaxies and observations of CBR both indicate there is a preferred rest frame and a preferred global time AND both sets of observations point to one and the same preferred frame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.naturalph...-of-space-time/

 

Here's what wiki has to say about this particular nobody:

 

Quote

Lee Smolin (/ˈsmoʊlɪn/; born June 6, 1955) is an American theoretical physicist, He received his Ph.D in theoretical physics from Harvard University in 1979.[2] He held postdoctoral research positions at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara and the University of Chicago, before becoming a faculty member at Yale, Syracuse and Pennsylvania State Universities. 

 

He has made contributions to quantum gravity theory, in particular the approach known as loop quantum gravity.  His research interests also include cosmology, elementary particle theory, the foundations of quantum mechanics, and theoretical biology.

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30976-the-twin-paradox-made-simple/page-2

 

Quotes from others, such as Nobel-prize winning physicist George Smoot, can also be found there.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Look, it has nothing with ''six'' understanding anything. I am more versed in these things than you. Here is a very simple understanding of why Newtonian time is wrong, so simple in fact, even you should understand it.

 

 

 

You are the absolute master of the "petitio principii" (begging the question)  fallacy, eh, Six?  E. G. "If Einstein's notions of space and time are correct, then they are correct." 

 

On, in your case, it's more like "because we know that Einstein's notions of space and time are indubitably correct, we therefore know that Einstein's notions of space and time are indubitably correct."  

 

The woman is this video (Fay Dawker, from the Imperial College in London) is herself obviously quite confused about what Newton said about time.  She has it backwards insofar as she says Newton's concept of "absolute time" is the equivalent to our "everyday" sense of time (he says the opposite).  She also says that "In Einstein's theory of gravity [i.e., GR] time is "personal."  But, as I've already said, gravitational time dilation in GR is ABSOLUTE, not relative.

 

Furthermore, both of these commentators fail to acknowledge Newton's distinction between "relative time" (time as measured) and absolute time.  They equate "time" (itself, as a concept) with the rates of clocks.  Nothing they say does anything to undermine or disprove Newton's theoretical concept of absolute time.

 

For that matter, neither of them even begin to claim (in the video you posted), as you do, that Newton was "wrong."  They simply point out some of the differences between Einstein's view of space and time and those of Newton.

 

But, again, the ultimate point here is that time is NOT a physical thing.  It is a theoretical concept, that's all.  Calling "time" a change in the rate of clock ticking is simply improper, from a theoretical perspective, and that's what Newton is pointing out.

 

That is not what "time" is, unless maybe you're an adherent of philosophical positivism, which has long been completely discredited and disavowed by philosophers of science (which includes theoretical physicists) as a viable philosophy.  Einstein himself explicitly rejected positivism in his mature years.  When Bohr's pointed out to him that he embraced positivism when he posited SR in 1905, Einstein said (paraphrasing)  "Perhaps I did, but it's nonsense all the same."

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 Einstein himself explicitly rejected positivism in his mature years.  When Bohr's pointed out to him that he embraced positivism when he posited SR in 1905, Einstein said (paraphrasing)  "Perhaps I did, but it's nonsense all the same."

 

 

Although he said similar things to Bohr, I was probably thinking of Heisenberg's account of his conversations with Albert when I said the above.

 

In the discussion with Einstein, Heisenberg once more tried to draw attention to his having dealt not with unobservable electron orbits inside atoms, but rather with observable radiation. He said to Einstein: “Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits.”

 

Einstein responded, “But you don’t seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?” Heisenberg goes on, “In astonishment, I said, ‘I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory. . . .’ Einstein replied, ‘Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense.’ ” And then came Einstein’s famous sentence: “Only the theory decides what one can observe.”

 

 

 

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1292474

 

As I have noted elsewhere, philosophical positivism had  strong grip on the philosophy of science until around 1950, when it was repudiated.  If you want to talk about concepts that are "outdated," Six, then maybe you should actually acquaint yourself with both modern science and the history of science.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Moronium