Time Dilation

[jerryo]

From another Forum..its all about Time

 

Does Time Really Exist As A Fourth Dimension Of Space ?

 

Does Time Really Exist

As A Fourth Dimension Of Space-time ?

 

Abstract

Regarding this question scientist should trust more his senses that his mind. Physical time exists only as a stream of change in physical space. Change does not "happen" in physical time -- change itself is physical time. This is a different and more correct perspective than the conventional view in physics, in which space-time is the theater or "stage" on which change happens.

 

Physical Time And Psychological time In the universe the passing of physical time cannot be clearly perceived as matter and space directly; one can perceive only irreversible physical, chemical, and biological changes in material media. On the basis of elementary perception (sight) one can conclude that physical time exists only as a stream of change that runs through material space. The terms "physical time" and "change" describe the same phenomenon. Physical time is irreversible. Change A transforms into change B, B transforms into C and so on. When B is in existence A does not exist anymore, when C is in existence B does not exist anymore.

The question arises: Why is it that irreversible physical time is experienced as past, present and future? The answer is obtained by analysing the scientific way of experiencing. The human senses perceive a stream of irreversible change. Once elaborated by the mind, the stream of change is experienced chronologically through psychological time that is a part of the human mind (1).

Let's look at the relationship between physical and psychological time by carrying out an experiment. Take a ball and allow it to roll down an incline. You can perceive only the movement of the ball in space, but you experience that the ball has also moved through time. How come? Perception passes first through psychological time and then the experience occurs. That's why you experience the movement of the ball in time. But on the basis of elementary perception (sight) one can only state that the ball has changed position in space.

By observing the continuous stream of irreversible physical change humans have developed psychological time through which we experience the universe. Psychological time is reversible. One can return to the past, in psychological time, through memory. This creates an idea that physical time also has a past, but this is not so.

Relativity Theory allows for speculation about time travel. It is possible for someone to travel through a black hole with a spaceship, go back into the past and kill his grandmother? The consequence is that he could never have been born (2). Travelling into the past through black holes is not possible because physical time is irreversible; the past exists only as psychological time through which it is not possible to travel with a spaceship.

The speed of psychological time does not always follow physical time, it depends on one's well-being. The more relaxed you are the slower the speed of psychological time is. In modern society time passes quickly, in so called primitive societies time passed slowly. In an altered state of consciousness, such as meditation, ecstatic dance, deep prayer, psychological time stops.

In abnormal state of health, there are aberration of subjective time such as acceleration or deceleration of lapse of time. Under several mental disturbances (like those characterising serious mental psychoses, drug-induced states, trances, mediations, as well as other deep "altered" states of consciousness), these anomalies / peculiarities become more pronounced. The flux of time may even cease completely (the sensations usually described as "time standing still", or "suspended", arrested" time or expand without limit (the feelings of "everlasting now, eternity") (3).

The understanding of physical time has changed over the ages. For ancient Greeks, Indians, and Mayans, time was considered a cyclic phenomenon; time moving in circles, with no beginning and no end. When Judaeo-Christian civilization arose in Europe, another understanding of time became prominent - time going forward in a straight line. According to this civilization, time has its beginning with God?s creation of the universe and will have its end with the Last Judgement. In Newtonian physics, physical time is an independent quantity (absolute time), running uniformly throughout the entire cosmic space (absolute space). In the Theory of Relativity, time is no more an independent physical quantity - it is linked with space in four-dimensional space-time. Here physical time is understood as a stream of irreversible change that runs through physical space.

 

Linear And Cyclic Concept Of Time In Cosmology The understanding of time have been different over the ages. For ancient Greeks, Indians, and Mayans, time was considered a cyclic phenomena. In Judaeo-Christian civilization as linear phenomena. In current scientific thought the concept of linear time is still prevalent. Stephan Hawkins says: "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, think I better stop now." (4)

Some recent cosmological models describe universe is a self-renewing system. Big bangs are cyclic. Transformation of the energy of matter into the energy of the space and vice versa is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, universe has no beginning and no end. It is made of one energy that appears as space and as matter. (5) In the cosmological model of dynamic equilibrium time is a cyclic phenomena, a permanent dynamics between matter and space. It has no beginning and no end.

 

Time Is Change We can measure with clocks speed and duration of change. By Newton and in Theory of Relativity time is an abstract physical quantity that can not be perceived clearly. Here time is visible. According to this understanding the "t" in physical formulas means "duration of change". For example:

 

d (distance) = v (speed of change) x t (duration of change)

 

In the Special Relativity the "theater" of the four dimensional space-time can be replaced with the three dimensional physical space. Lets imagine that a train is passing a station with the speed v. The observer on the train throws a ball that is rolling on the floor of the corridor. The duration (time) of ball rolling will be for him t' (regarding the fourth equation of Lorentz transformation, see below), for the observer on the embankment the duration (time) of the ball rolling will be t.

 

(fouth equation of Lorentz transformation)

 

The doubt that "space-time" is the ultimate arena of the universe was raised by Dirac and recently by Julian Barbour: "On a beautiful October afternoon in 1936 I ravelled to the Bavarian Alps with a student friend, Jurgen. We planned to spend the night in a hut and climb to the peak of Watzmann at down next day. On the train, I read an article about Dirac's attempt to unify Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum theory. A single sentence in it was to transform my life: "This result has let me to doubt how fundamental the four-dimensional requirement in physics is". In other words Dirac was doubting that most wonderful creation of twentieth-century physics: the fusion of space and time into space-time." (6)

In his book "The End Of Time" Barbour discusses brilliantly about time, but his final conclusions are against the elementary perception and seems to be wrong: "In fact, 35 years on from that failed attempt on the Watzmann, I know believe that time does not exists at all, and that motion itself is pure illusion. What is more, I believe there is quite strong support in physics for his view. I have a vision and I have to tell you about it." (7)

In the rational and also in the conscious experience motion is real, not an illusion. The main difference is that in the rational experience past and future are consistent parts of the world; conscious experience brings awareness that the only existing physical reality is the one that can be perceived and measured, past exists only as a memory, future exist only as an imagination.

That time does not exist as a fourth dimension of space-time and that with clocks we measure only duration of change was also discussed in the author book "Konec casa" (The End Of Time). (8)

 

Physical Space And Its Mathematical Description Position of an object in physical space can be defined with three coordinates. That's why in daily life we experience it as three dimensional. Three dimensional Euclid geometry corresponds better the nature of the physical space than other geometries do. In cosmology physical space is experienced through different mathematical models: three-dimensional infinite Euclid geometry, four dimensional geometry of Minkowsky, four dimensional finite spherical Riemann geometry. Cosmologists should develop awareness that mathematical model and physical space are two different things.

 

Conclusion Scientific understanding of time and space should be revised on the basis of elementary perception. Einstein says: "Reality is a feature of theory used to understand the world, rather than a feature of the world itself. One is danger of being misled by the illusion that the "real" of our daily experience, "exists really", and that certain concepts of physics are "mere ideas" separated from the " real " by an unbridgeable gulf." (9)

[EWright]

From another Forum..its all about Time

 

Edit: Exact quote of above post deleted by Tormod for brevity.

 

:D That's deep man... puff, puff :) ... really deep. :)

[xersan]

The concept of "time dilation" is a fiction. Einstein and others are wrong and mystic.

 

In fact, time dilation is impossible. Time is absolute. But proper time is possible due to limited value of light's speed. (Where is the factor of <proper time> in your problem ?)

 

Here is an evidence: SR is not consistent by itself. Theory had analyzed the light only at the same direction of its source. The analyzing the motion of the light at the opposite direction according to its source by SR gives <time contraction>. The position of A and C can be set together simultaneously (Please read # 17 under the thread of < No time at the speed of light> ). But the dilation and contraction are never realised together simultaneously in the same experiment.

[EWright]

The concept of "time dilation" is a fiction. Einstein and others are wrong and mystic.

 

In fact, time dilation is impossible. Time is absolute. But proper time is possible due to limited value of light's speed. (Where is the factor of <proper time> in your problem ?)

 

Here is an evidence: SR is not consistent by itself. Theory had analyzed the light only at the same direction of its source. The analyzing the motion of the light at the opposite direction according to its source by SR gives <time contraction>. The position of A and C can be set together simultaneously (Please read # 17 under the thread of < No time at the speed of light> ). But the dilation and contraction are never realised together simultaneously in the same experiment.

 

You translate #17 from that post into english and I'll discuss it with you. However, even though I agree that SR is wrong. Time can be shown to vary for objects traveling at different rates of speed. How else do you account for the experiment in which an atomic clock synched with one on earth showed less time when it was flown at a high rate of speed when later compared to it's counterpart?

[EWright]

Oops, SR isn't completely wrong... it's just not completely right.

[Tormod]

Oops, SR isn't completely wrong... it's just not completely right.

 

EWright, I understand that this is your opinion and it is probably true - no theory can be 100% correct.

 

But it would be very interesting to have a list of things that are *wrong* with SR so that we can understand what problems you are having with it. :)

[EWright]

EWright, I understand that this is your opinion and it is probably true - no theory can be 100% correct.

 

But it would be very interesting to have a list of things that are *wrong* with SR so that we can understand what problems you are having with it. :)

 

LOL. Nice try Tormod. I am not having problems with SR as it relates to my ideas. I do admit I am still working to undertand teh theory better, but all aspects that I do understand about it and the larger aspects of cosmology, can be explained in my theory. However, I can not do so mathamatically (yet). And this does cause me concern, because I realize The theory must be able to be shown in this context as well. In all honesty (both with myself and with you all) I do believe it can be proved mathematically. But it may require redefining some aspects of physics as they relate to relativity. This does not mean they will not fit with relativity; just that their interpretation of what is happening and why would be different. Thus, the math... if translated between relativity and my theory.. shoudl yeild the same answers and be supported equally by experiments that have been conducted to date.

 

I am glad to hear, however, that you are open to the idea that SR is not 100% correct. And, likewise, I can assure you that my idea, as initially presented, will not be 100% correct. I am only human after all, and a novice in this area. Thus the idea is much bigger than myself or what I am fully capable of doing with it. I only hope to present it in such a way that it can be considered valid enough to be expanded on by those better qualified than myself.

[xersan]

You translate #17 from that post into english and I'll discuss it with you. However, even though I agree that SR is wrong. Time can be shown to vary for objects traveling at different rates of speed. How else do you account for the experiment in which an atomic clock synched with one on earth showed less time when it was flown at a high rate of speed when later compared to it's counterpart?

 

 

. Suppose a source (flash) at the middle of a train or a space shuttle.

. The vehicle goes toward the direction of + x .

. The source flashes at the moment of T0.

. The lights of the source can go to all directions (spherical).

. Take into consideration two lights of them; one of them has the direction of + x, and . the other has the direction of (-) x

. Analyze the motion of these lights by SR

. Lorentz’s equations give slower tempo by + x directional light.

. Lorentz’s equations give faster tempo by (-) x directional light.

. Because, the theory takes the point of the source at the moment of T1, but, in fact, the light starts from the point of the S0 at the moment of T0.

. The light takes the distance between the points of S0 and O1 during the time of (t = T1 – T0)

 

 

The moment of T0:

 

……………...........……< :eek: >………………..........….

 

………………..........…….S0

 

 

The moment of T1

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<.>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>

 

O1………………………………S0….....….....…S1................O1

 

. The theory takes the distance S1O1 in its accounting

. But, in fact the light travels S0O1

. For the opposite direction, the distance of O1S1 is longer and its formula of SR gives faster tempo so.

CONCLUSION : The theory of SR takes the distance between the points of the source at the moment of T1 and the observer. It would take the point of the source at the moment of T0; because the light starts to travel from S0.

[Tormod]

LOL. Nice try Tormod.

 

:eek:

 

I am glad to hear, however, that you are open to the idea that SR is not 100% correct. And, likewise, I can assure you that my idea, as initially presented, will not be 100% correct. I am only human after all, and a novice in this area. Thus the idea is much bigger than myself or what I am fully capable of doing with it. I only hope to present it in such a way that it can be considered valid enough to be expanded on by those better qualified than myself.

 

There are many alternatives to relativity. Basically, the reason relativity has such widespread support is of course that it is the *current widely known* theory that *best* explains what we see around us. It will be improved upon (I think it already has) and may eventually turn out to be completely wrong.

 

For example, it makes assumptions that we cannot prove without intergalactic travel - that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. It also assumes that light speed is finite and never-changing. I actually think this may be wrong. That is why I suggested the book "Faster than light" by Joao Magueijo - it shows that there are indeed several alternatives to relativity, even if they do incorporate relativity to some extent (usually in the same way that relativity incorporates Newtonian physics). However, they are as of yet speculative and have little (if any) evidence to support them. But that is how science works...

 

I look forward to seeing your theories. I am no mathematician and don't read formulae very well - I am more than happy when someone can explain their theory in straight language.

 

I hope this clears up something. I am not against new ideas. I simply want to understand why they are new, what they explain better than the old ones.

[Qfwfq]

For example, it makes assumptions that we cannot prove without intergalactic travel - that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

That's asking for quite a bit! :eek:

 

Just as for cosmology, we can get indirect evidence. The principle of relativity is well verified in our neck of the woods. Nothing in physics can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt, it's a matter of having reasonable evidence.

 

It also assumes that light speed is finite and never-changing. I actually think this may be wrong.

That isn't exactly the assumption of SR, it's that c is a scalar (invariant). The meaning is a bit different from "never-changing", it means that it's invariant for Lorentz coordinate transformations.

[Tormod]

That's asking for quite a bit! :eek:

 

That's cool. I don't think anyone can prove that all laws of physics are the same in all of space-time. We know it was not true in the planck epoch, for example. We have no clue what happens to light inside black holes.

 

Just as for cosmology, we can get indirect evidence. The principle of relativity is well verified in our neck of the woods. Nothing in physics can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt, it's a matter of having reasonable evidence.

 

Yes, we can get indirect evidence but as with all other evidence it must be interpreted. Our mechanisms for interpretation may be very good or they may be very bad. Not all science is performed well.

 

I still think that everything we know may turn out to be completely wrong. :) It's been only 100 years since special relativity was published. New theories pop up and look fine and dandy, but has problems (for example, it does not explain how our universe ended up flat). The theory of inflation is good but has serious problems, for example. String theory is completely beyond the realm of experiment at the time being.

 

Don't get me wrong. still think relativity is a brilliant masterpiece of human intellect and will probably remain so for a very, very long time. As was Newton's work, and that of many others.

 

That isn't exactly the assumption of SR, it's that c is a scalar (invariant). The meaning is a bit different from "never-changing", it means that it's invariant for Lorentz coordinate transformations.

 

Sorry, I was unclear. With "never-changing" I meant "same for all observers". We cannot prove that it is true all over the universe, nor for all times. Nor can we prove that it is true beyond the horizon of the visible universe.

 

I still think Einstein meant that c was never-changing, though. Or at least that he wanted it to be! Friedmann managed to insult Einstein by showing him that his theories implied an expanding universe!

 

My point above was to imply that while relativity may be correct as a description of the universe as it is now, it may not be correct for the universe at all times. It may also turn out to not be correct everywhere in our universe (Magueiro suggests theories of VSL in which light stops at the center of black holes, for example).

[Qfwfq]

Wouldn't both the guys see the clock as 2:00?

Of course! :hihi:

[xersan]

Of course! :lol:

 

In fact, there is "proper time". If you follow a clock on the moon from earth by a telescope you can read the time before 384 000 / 300 000 = 1.28 sec according to your syncronized clock . If you go away from a clock you can see the past time due to only distance. These are called "proper time". Time dilation in SR is not a proper time. Nuans must be never mixed.

[EWright]

In fact, there is "proper time". If you follow a clock on the moon from earth by a telescope you can read the time before 384 000 / 300 000 = 1.28 sec according to your syncronized clock . If you go away from a clock you can see the past time due to only distance. These are called "proper time". Time dilation in SR is not a proper time. Nuans must be never mixed.

 

OK, this is *almost* english... Can you clarify this a little further please? You're not suggesting any sort of negative time dialation, are you?

[xersan]

I want to say: The theory SR is established on some wrong axioms. How does an axiom become wrong ? For example, in past human had guess that the eart is flat; this axiom was wrong. We have not difficult for reference systems in lokal conditions on earth, and we suppose the speeds are according to first coordınate system of the material. this is a local axiom. Because, the reference system of light is never its source. So, time dilation is also a fiction upon wrong axioms

[Tormod]

I think you are confusing the term "axioms" with "theories".

[Southtown]

I think you are confusing the term "axioms" with "theories".

Actually, "axiom" would be more accurately discriptive. A theory is an unproved assumption that is still being scrutinized, while an axiom is a theory that is accepted as being "self-evident."