What is time?

[Doctordick]

...and didn't understand the need for him to put down an entire forum because nobody had revived one of his questions.

Personally, I would like to know exactly what I said to "put down an entire forum"! I suppose it might be the comment concerning intellectual immaturity; however, that is little more than what I think is a very accurate assessment of a great many of the posts here. I could go to the trouble to list them if you wish but I suspect many people here could do that and I doubt it would serve any purpose.

For example, I thought one of my contributions was relevant and relatively savvy, but he lost me when he dismissed the conservation of energy as meaningless for his purposes.

I believe you are referring to your comment, "my model was based on different assumptions than you state above". I thought I made it clear that your assumptions were inconsistent with the explicit behavior described in my example. If you truly feel your assumptions were consistent and applicable I think we should discuss it further as I suspect you are misunderstanding something I said somewhere. To quote you at the time,

But in the meantime, mass and energy must be allowed to conserve. The minimum solution (there are others yielding gigatons of explosive energy and then absorbing gigatons of ambient energy) is simply that his instantaneous passage through time carves out a "shell" of his bodily passage. This shell would behave much like a perfect force field.

Neither mass nor energy need be conserved within any mechanical device designed to achieve a specified behavior. Most common industrial and household devices rely very strongly on interactions with both mass and energy flows obtained outside the devices.

But the good doctor apparantly has a "script" in mind, and I'm just not interested in playing "role" and speaking only the lines that are given me.

I am very sorry you have taken my comments that way as the only script I have in mind is careful attention to detail in logical deductions.

I also criticize Dick's remarks about intelligence and maturity and I faded the most inappropriate ones

I looked at the post and found only the "intellectually immature" faded out. I take that to imply two specific things: first, that you believe the great majority of people on this forum are "intellectually mature" (which I sincerely doubt) and second, that being "intellectually immature" is something one should be ashamed of (which would imply that the status of a serious student is worthy of insult). All I meant is that "intellectually immature" people tend to operate with poorly thought out ideas and this failing needs to be addressed in order for those who wish to learn to appreciate the idea of thinking carefully. Personally, I would find behavior opposing correction to be insulting in the extreame.

 

Regarding Kant's views, give me a reference on the web and I will look at it. My distaste with philosophers is not with what they say but rather with their failure to carry the issues to fruition. And, believe me, I am well aware of the standard interpretation of both relativity and quantum mechanics: your reference to "the observer's proper time and spatial submanifold". In my opinion, it is the attempt to mix two very different concepts of time here which has blocked the view of almost everyone. The ancient concept of time was, "if two things can interact, they exist at the same time". Newton's success with his "clock time" dependent solutions of so many dynamic problems led to the idea that time ("if two things can interact, they exist at the same time") was a measurable variable. Einstein certainly proved that idea erroneous and yet he did not see the full consequences. He never realized he was talking about two different things. Magic is the art of misdirection of attention and, with it, magicians can keep us from seeing the truth even when we know they are fooling us; how much worse off are we when we don't know we are being misled. All of the standard arguments are designed to pull attention away from the difference between these two concepts of time.

:) Not sure what you mean exactly but does it match up with Lorentz invariance?

Yes, it matches up with Lorentz invariance exactly. When I was (an intellectually immature) graduate student of relativity, I explained this to the chairman of the department (who was teaching relativity at the time). It took several hours for me to make my contention clear to him but, in the end, he said, "well of course you are absolutely correct; but please don't show this to any of the other graduate students as it will only confuse them!" And I didn't (as I said, I was intellectually immature at the time and not operating on well thought out ideas).

 

If you want a simple absolute proof that my contention is perfectly correct (consistent with special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics), you can read four successive posts on physicsforums wherein I put forth essentially the same argument I put before that professor some forty years ago. Read that and point out a flaw if you can. (It is only four posts because of the length limit on physicsforums.com; actually it is not difficult reading at all.)

... :Einstein's 1905 papers had a very phenomenological approach but Minkowski's was geometrical. I haven't yet read further I'll just ask if you find that inconsistent too, and where?

You are misunderstanding my assertion of an error in the representation. From my perspective, t and tau are very different variables and should be handled as different entities. Einstein's and Minkowski's perspectives are erroneous for exactly the same reason: a physical situation requiring five different variables is being represented in a four dimensional space. In my presentation it is mass quantization which removes tau from visibility. Notice that, even in the standard theory, mass quantization yields infinite half life (a measure which is always expressed in terms of tau when not infinite); however, delta tau between interactions (Einstein's invariant interval) is almost never infinitely uncertain! You know what is going on here don't you? The deflection to the concept of half life is simple misdirection of attention.

Wait, I found:Remember the light coooooooooone!

More misdirection of attention.

... the very reason they say ya can't get faster than light.

Then it shouldn't be a geometric possibility. This issue is also heavily weighted in misdirection of attention.

:eek2: many textbooks include the integral for proper time of a particle in accelerated motion.

Yes, but they seldom point out (I would say never but I haven't read everything) that this integral is always exactly the reading on an ideal clock following the path. They don't like bringing attention to that detail.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Qfwfq]

I take that to imply two specific things: first, that you believe the great majority of people on this forum are "intellectually mature" (which I sincerely doubt) and second, that being "intellectually immature" is something one should be ashamed of (which would imply that the status of a serious student is worthy of insult).

I find this irrelevant. People don't like this kind of remark, which may have provoked the moody response, and it comes somewhat under the heading of ad hominem. It isn't the way to support your point. If you choose to frequent the place but find only some here interesting, fine, but remarks like that are unnecessary and neither humourous nor otherwise appreciated.

 

From my perspective, t and tau are very different variables and should be handled as different entities.

You're talking about the time coordinate and proper time...

Einstein's and Minkowski's perspectives are erroneous for exactly the same reason: a physical situation requiring five different variables is being represented in a four dimensional space.

but... uhm, those ain't five linear independent vectors!

 

mass quantization yields infinite uncertainty in half life (which is always expressed in terms of tau); however, delta tau between interactions (Einstein's invariant interval) is almost never infinitely uncertain! You know what is going on here don't you? The deflection to the concept of half life is simple misdirection of attention.

Deflection to the concept of half life? Both are often indicated with tau, sure, but the coefficient in exponential decay is a concept different from proper time. The half life of particle species is just one example of a time quantity, it has simply been used as a way of revealing proper time for very fast objects. Anyway half life doesn't have an infinite uncertainty unless you use a definition very different from standard deviation.

 

More misdirection of attention.

From what?

 

Dick, the light cone defines 'before' and 'after' compatibly with the Lorentz transforms. Can you devise an experiment that inequivocally determines which of two events at spacelike separation is before the other? Or is your objection more subtle than that?

 

Then it shouldn't be a geometric possibility.

Is every "geometric possibility" a physical possibility? Travelling from point A to B is a physical event. Although this isn't possible if A and B have spacelike separation, there can be a physical event at A and one at B. It's even possible to know of both, somewhere, but at a sufficiently later time (in the future cone of both A and :).

 

Yes, but they seldom point out (I would say never but I haven't read everything) that this integral is always exactly the reading on an ideal clock following the path. They don't like bringing attention to that detail.

Why don't they like it? And, what essential difference is there between that and what they usually say?

 

Regarding Kant's views, give me a reference on the web and I will look at it.

Link to Kant. :) :eek2:

[infamous]

Personally, I would like to know exactly what I said to "put down an entire forum"! I suppose it might be the comment concerning intellectual immaturity; however, that is little more than what I think is a very accurate assessment of a great many of the posts here. I could go to the trouble to list them if you wish but I suspect many people here could do that and I doubt it would serve any purpose.

Personally DockD, it would never offend me to be singled out as intellectually immature because to learn, one must recongnize a need, and I certainly recognize mine. However, this forum is not unlike any community or neighborhood and nobody in either case likes to be reminded of their insufficiencies. Consider the alternative; If a few of us need to be instructed, just develope the information for us instead of focusing upon our suggested ignorance. If you want to continue referring to the membership as ignorant, don't be surprised if, instead of a slap on the back, you get a slap in the face..........Infy

[Qfwfq]

True Infy, if we aren't ignorant, we don't strive to learn...

 

Except, Dick, I don't even call it a deficiency of intelligence. That's a thing that prevents one from learning more. An intellectually immature student won't get anywhere much.

[Doctordick]

I find this irrelevant. People don't like this kind of remark, which may have provoked the moody response, and it comes somewhat under the heading of ad hominem. It isn't the way to support your point. If you choose to frequent the place but find only some here interesting, fine, but remarks like that are unnecessary and neither humourous nor otherwise appreciated.

Personally, I think I would put considerable emphasis on that word "somewhat" up there and it certainly wasn't there to gain support. I am an old man and I sometimes lose patience with some people; I apologize.

You're talking about the time coordinate and proper time...but... uhm, those ain't five linear independent vectors!

Oh, it has been handed down by god that they aren't has it? Would you do me the favor of proving that assertion? Clearly the physics community is firmly convinced they are not but I don't think the existence of that opinion constitutes a valid proof that they are not. ;)

... but the coefficient in exponential decay is a concept different from proper time.

Are you trying to tell me that expected decay "time" for a fundamental entity is not properly measured against the proper time along the path of that entity? ;)

The half life of particle species is just one example of a time quantity, it has simply been used as a way of revealing proper time for very fast objects.

Are you absolutely sure you have the horse on the right side of the cart there? :rant:

Anyway half life doesn't have an infinite uncertainty unless you use a definition very different from standard deviation.

I love the slight of hand there! You are certainly working hard at deflecting attention from the real issue. Who said anything about the "half-life" having an infinite uncertainty? What I said was that, if mass is momentum quantization in the tau direction, then the uncertainty in tau (the entities position in the tau direction) would be infinitely uncertain; quite a different statement. Since the half-life of the fundamental entities making up our laboratories and the tools we use to examine the universe are almost universally mass quantized, the clear conclusion is positions in the tau direction cannot possibly be directly measured. Now that is a fact with far reaching consequences.

Dick, the light cone defines 'before' and 'after' compatibly with the Lorentz transforms. Can you devise an experiment that inequivocally determines which of two events at spacelike separation is before the other? Or is your objection more subtle than that?

Did you look at the reference to the four successive posts on physicsforums I gave? Standard relativistic representation of any experiment must yield exactly the same results as my representation. If you look at the two representations, you will discover that the light cone of Einstein's perspective transforms into exactly the same cone in my perspective. The only difference between the two is that he fails to think of t and tau as independent variables. Note that c*tau is an ordinary spacial dimension in my representation and, no change in tau (proper time change is zero for a photon) means the entity (the photon) is traveling perpendicular to the tau dimension (and, by the way, means its momentum in the tau direction is zero: i.e., its rest mass is zero). I personally don't find that very "subtle" at all. ;)

Is every "geometric possibility" a physical possibility?

Well, certainly not if "time" is taken to be a geometric coordinate! In my representation, it is an interaction parameter: i.e., if two entities interact, they must exist at the same time. Time, as conceived of by Newton, is simply not possible (it is an internally inconsistent concept). In my representation, time is simply not a measurable variable. Instead, it is a convenient parameter which serves to order events when one establishes a specific coordinate system for the purpose of calculating physical interactions. When you are doing a calculation, that calculation is being done in a specific coordinate system; the relativistic effects (the relationships between different coordinate systems used to perform such a calculation) end up being exactly those required by standard relativity.

Why don't they like it? And, what essential difference is there between that and what they usually say?

Their presentation universally encourages the student to avoid considering the possibility that t and tau are independent variables. When I was a graduate student, the chairman of the department (after he understood what I was doing) essentially instructed me to avoid suggesting such a blasphemy to other students. Yeah, it might confuse them. ;) It seems to me know that it would have been much more apt to set them thinking and that might be a dangerous precedent for graduate students. :rant:

 

Your URL didn't work so I googled "Kant critique of pure reason" and read quite a bit of the various translations. I am reminded of Shakespeare's "words, words, words; signifying nothing". I am sorry but I didn't find any of it very enlightening. ;)

Personally DockD, it would never offend me to be singled out as intellectually immature because to learn, one must recongnize a need, and I certainly recognize mine.

I have read a lot of your posts and I would not have expected you to be offended as you appear to be quite a rational person. ;)

If you want to continue referring to the membership as ignorant, don't be surprised if, instead of a slap on the back, you get a slap in the face.

I'm not here to offend anyone but sometimes I do lose my patience. Particularly when the volume of garbage begins to exceed my expectations. I suppose my standards must be somewhat different from the standards accepted here as I actually find it rather strange for a science forum that the "quiet lounge" (the only division constrained to a selected group) contains posts with the least scientific merit of all the divisions. It rather seems that Science is not the central issue of interest here at all. I just appreciate the number of reasonable people here; actually a rare phenomena on the web. ;)

Except, Dick, I don't even call it a deficiency of intelligence. That's a thing that prevents one from learning more. An intellectually immature student won't get anywhere much.

I can only guess that you and I have a somewhat different idea of what the adjective immature means. But that is really not very surprising as I am of the opinion that humans rather underestimate the extent of misunderstanding buried in ordinary language. It is another issue seldom well thought out. :rant:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[infamous]

I just appreciate the number of reasonable people here; actually a rare phenomena on the web. ;)

Bravo!!!!!.................Now that's the kind of remark that will get you a slap on the back. BTW, Hypography is not in the strictest sense, devoted to the sole pursuit of scientific observations. It is true that our main focus is scienctific discussion, however, we encourage discourse regarding many other fields of study.....................enjoy DocD.....................Infy

[Qfwfq]

Oh, it has been handed down by god that they aren't [five linear independent vectors] has it? Would you do me the favor of proving that assertion?

I hope you're not asking me to teach you linear algebra and geometry, but I can't otherwise figure why you would reply like that.

 

If your problem is not lack of grounding then, given a vector of an n-dimensional space and considering its n coordinates and it's norm, totalling n + 1, what is inconsistent about it and what need is there to prove it? If you have a totally different perspective about time, you still didn't show there to be an inconsistency in Minkowski's own personal perspective.

 

Are you trying to tell me that expected decay "time" for a fundamental entity is not properly measured against the proper time along the path of that entity?

You can measure it from any coordinate frame.

 

The term 'proper' in proper time simply means 'its own' i. e. according to its rest frame. It isn't a matter of measuring it "properly", you can measure it just as properly according to other frames. Talk about slight of hand! You even deny having said anything about the "half-life" having an infinite uncertainty. I won't bother looking back upstream and you manner of arguing doesn't encourage me to make an effort to follow your perspective. You apologized for losing patience but I think you'll need plenty of it to persuade someone to follow your perspective. Not much use in claiming the Minkowskian perspective to be geometrically inconsistent.

 

If you succeded with the chairman of the department and he truly did see your point, perhaps he simply thought it more appropriate for you to publish it in "Foundations of Physics" or something than to try explaining it to students whose purpose was to learn accepted views and pass their tests. One thing I realized by the time I graduated, they don't expect the typical student to make breakthroughs in the frontier, they aim at giving them the basis to work on. I suspect that was his concern, regardless of the value of your perspective. The way to propose a replacement for what's established isn't by teaching it to students.

 

Try, perhaps, convincing people of your alternative view of time without claiming established views to be inconsistent. It looks like me that you propose something equivalent. Maybe distinguishable or maybe not, but it would have to be fairly equivalent regarding so far known experimental results.

 

I did not expect that URL to work, it was just my own little way of losing my patience, especially after the claim about the five variables in four dimensions being an inconsistency. :lol:

 

I can only guess that you and I have a somewhat different idea of what the adjective immature means.

The problem was more the 'intellectually' than the immature, a student may have learned so far less than a seasoned scientist, but that ain't less intelligence it's less knowledge, experience etc...

[infamous]

 

The problem was more the 'intellectually' than the immature, a student may have learned so far less than a seasoned scientist, but that ain't less intelligence it's less knowledge, experience etc...

Excellent point Qfwfq; Spoken like a true intellectual.................Infy

[Turtle]

... I suppose my standards must be somewhat different from the standards accepted here as I actually find it rather strange for a science forum that the "quiet lounge" (the only division constrained to a selected group) contains posts with the least scientific merit of all the divisions. It rather seems that Science is not the central issue of interest here at all. I just appreciate the number of reasonable people here; actually a rare phenomena on the web. :lol:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

 

___Thank you Doc for taking the time to read my (our) quatrains; I had fun righting most of them. I may yet poeticize your Tao.:)

[Doctordick]

I hope you're not asking me to teach you linear algebra and geometry, but I can't otherwise figure why you would reply like that.

You can't figure out why I would reply like that because the slight of hand you used to try and deflect attention from the central issue didn't work so you essentially changed the subject. You are either intentionally trying to cloud the issues or you are so indoctrinated by the conventional arguments manufactured to deflect attention that you don't even realize you are doing it. :lol:

If your problem is not lack of grounding then, given a vector of an n-dimensional space and considering its n coordinates and it's norm, totalling n + 1, what is inconsistent about it and what need is there to prove it?

You are making an assumption that the proper space to be used here is four dimensional: i.e., that there are only four independent variables. If time and tau are different things, they are independent variables until a relationship is shown to exist between them. As I said, it is an assumption that we are dealing with a four dimensional space time continuum. Suppose t and tau are independent variables. :D

Clearly the physics community is firmly convinced they are not but I don't think the existence of that opinion constitutes a valid proof that we are not. :hyper:

If you have a totally different perspective about time, you still didn't show there to be an inconsistency in Minkowski's own personal perspective.

The inconsistency in the "four dimensional perspective" is that it is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. And, Dirac's solution to the special relativistic case constitutes a substantial distortion from reasonable analysis, a distortion required to continue the illusion that t and tau are the same thing (by the way, that is a distortion of interpretation, not of the validity of his equation). And please don't worry about that comment; I put it forth, at this point, as a mere opinion. Until you understand the full consequences of dealing with t and tau as independent variables, you will not even begin to comprehend how relativistic quantum mechanics should properly be done. :cup:

You can measure it from any coordinate frame.

More deflection of attention! You clearly know enough physics to comprehend that the measurement of the half-life of any fundamental entity is a characteristic unique to the entity and that the only valid measurement of that fundamental characteristic is in the rest frame of the entity. To avoid mentioning the need for a relativistic translation to that rest frame is overt deflection of attention from the issue of a difference between t and tau. :D

The term 'proper' in proper time simply means 'its own' i. e. according to its rest frame. It isn't a matter of measuring it "properly", you can measure it just as properly according to other frames.

All you are saying here is that, in its own rest frame tau and t are the same thing. In all other cases they are different! The only difference between that statement and what I am saying is that I am saying "in all cases they are different"; the appearance that they are the same in that unique frame called "the rest frame" is an illusion created by the quantization of rest mass. :hyper:

Talk about slight of hand! You even deny having said anything about the "half-life" having an infinite uncertainty. I won't bother looking back upstream ...

Well, I did and I discovered I had slipped and I apologize (a direct consequence of impatience believe me). :) I should have said, "Notice that, even in the standard theory, mass quantization yields infinite half life (a measure which is always expressed in terms of tau when not infinite). I have edited the post to correct this. The point of the comment was the inconsistency between the t=tau perspective and the standard presentation of quantum uncertainty. Perhaps this difficulty is too subtle for you to comprehend. :)

If you succeded with the chairman of the department and he truly did see your point, perhaps he simply thought it more appropriate for you to publish it in "Foundations of Physics" or something than to try explaining it to students whose purpose was to learn accepted views and pass their tests.

No, I think you are wrong there. From my more mature intellectual perspective (gained over the years) I think it is much more probable that he could find no error but didn't have the intellectual confidence to back such a outlandish thought: i.e., he didn't want to make a fool of himself. :D

I did not expect that URL to work, it was just my own little way of losing my patience, especially after the claim about the five variables in four dimensions being an inconsistency. :D

The problem is the assumption that t and tau are the same thing (five variables or five dimensions are just a different way of looking at exactly the same thing). Your position is totally equivalent to an intellectual worm insisting that altitude is a function of where he is and not an independent variable. Such a position would leave him quite unable to comprehend Newtonian gravity.

___Thank you Doc for taking the time to read my (our) quatrains; I had fun righting most of them. I may yet poeticize your Tao.:hyper:

I read a lot but seldom comment. Not that I don't have opinions but rather that I don't expect others to be particularly interested in opinions. :cool:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[infamous]

Time is an allusion which has purpose.....................Edgar Cayce

[infamous]

In the face of eternity, time loses all meaning....................Infamous

[Qfwfq]

Dick, you failed to notice that I had no intention of refuting your personal perspective in itself (without even knowing what it is!) or of barring you from find a different way of treating physics, but your criticism of Minkowski simply doesn't hold up. What's your definition of a space being four dimensional? Do a vector's components and its norm form a basis?

 

You can costruct the mathematical framework of your choice, using definitions of your choice, but there's no point in criticizing Minkowski's by confusing the math it's based on with yours. Minkowski's is that of standard linear algebra although his norm is actually a pseudonorm.

 

No point in saying an apple isn't an apple because it lacks the features of a lemon...:lol:

[Doctordick]

In reaction to your great interest in Minkowski's perspective, I have decided to review this thread to see exactly how that issue actually arose. I certainly was not the one who brought it up. :D

 

As an aside, I had not noticed your edits of my post of February 11 prior to this reread of the thread. I take it that you differed with my opinion and felt that InfiniteNow's earlier post should have been taken as evidence of intelligence and amounted to an acceptable contribution to an intelligent discussion. It would seem that, in your opinion, I should have just called him a "booger head" as you clearly didn't find that so offensive as to be covered up. Well my opinions of decorum and intelligent conversation differ considerably from yours. In deference to your sensibilities I have already covered up the terms you seem to find offensive. :D

 

But, back to the Minkowski issue. The first mention of Minkowski was in your post of February 13, top of page 14 of this thread.

Einstein's 1905 papers had a very phenomenological approach but Minkowski's was geometrical. I haven't yet read further I'll just ask if you find that inconsistent too, and where?

Since Minkowski's geometry is almost always introduced via Einstein's theory of relativity and represented in those terms, the nature of the question you are asking really appears to require a little research in order to discover what you meant. I should have done that when I read your post but I had made the rather simple minded assumption that you weren't baiting me. Which was apparently a bad assumption. :hihi:

 

I have reviewed the references available to me (which are quite limited as to what Minkowski actually had in mind when he suggested his unusual metric) and I have found no explicit reference to Minkowski's exact definition of what these coordinates were to represent. All references I have read pretty well assume the negative term corresponds to time in Einstein's space time continuum. Since the only interest I have in this issue is the definition of time (the subject of this thread), on close examination, your question actually becomes quite meaningless. Unless you can give me an exact reference to Minkowski's intentions concerning the definition of time, I have no idea what they were and cannot criticize or support him. :D

 

The title of this thread is "What is time?" and I had hoped I could have an intelligent discussion of the subject. It certainly does not concern the validity of coordinate systems designed and promulgated by various people. I very much agree with Poincaré's perspective: that geometry is a way of displaying information and one is free to use whatever geometry one finds useful. Einstein has proposed that the universe is a space-time continuum which the physics community has apparently bought hook line and sinker (I wouldn't want to offend). :lol:

 

With regard to my comment, "what he missed was that they could not be used to define the boundary between the past and the future", you responded with:

Remember the light coooooooooone!

If you stopped to think for a moment, it might dawn on you that the light cone defines the division only for the individual entity at the apex of the cone and does not define that boundary for any other entity in the universe: i.e., it cannot be used to define the boundary between the past and the future as defined by the standard notion of time. The boundary between past and future is usually thought of as the moment in time commonly referred to as "simultaneous", something Einstein clearly understood could not be uniquely defined. And no physicist that I know of regards the light cone as such a boundary. It is instead, a limit as to how far the possible alternative boundaries (as conceived of in other frames of reference) can deviate from the presumed boundary being used by that individual entity at the apex of the cone. :)

 

When I said, "a physical situation requiring five different variables is being represented in a four dimensional space", you responded with "those ain't five linear independent vectors!" Yeah, coach, that is exactly what I am saying: to represent time and tau together with space, we need five vectors as t and tau are different! Your insistence that they are not is nothing more than an expression of your belief that the current view of reality as held by physicists is absolutely correct and above reproach and you certainly are not going to consider the possibility of being wrong.

Dick, you failed to notice that I had no intention of refuting your personal perspective in itself (without even knowing what it is!) or of barring you from find a different way of treating physics, but your criticism of Minkowski simply doesn't hold up. What's your definition of a space being four dimensional? Do a vector's components and its norm form a basis?

And exactly what does this have to do with time? At this point I am firmly convinced that your central hope is to make this thread sufficiently boring as to deflect attention from criticism you are not capable of refuting. I have made no criticism of Minkowski anywhere. :) I do note, on the other hand, that you have not acceded to a single one of my answers to your distorted perspective but rather ignore them and proceed with criticisms elsewhere, apparently searching furtively for some reason I should be ingored. :D

You can costruct the mathematical framework of your choice, using definitions of your choice, but there's no point in criticizing Minkowski's by confusing the math it's based on with yours. Minkowski's is that of standard linear algebra although his norm is actually a pseudonorm.

Now the only reason I can see for that sentence is the fact that there are probably not a dozen people on this forum who are intellectually mature enough to understand why it is there. Hey guys, it's there to confuse you.

No point in saying an apple isn't an apple because it lacks the features of a lemon...:cup:

You are implying I shouldn't say t is not tau because it lacks the features of a (??? and what am I to substitute into this part of the metaphor???) :lol:

 

The subject of this thread is "What is time?" and I am saying that the physics community has a confused concept in mind which distorts their work greatly (particularly in the field of relativity where it is the preeminent cause of the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics). And Qfwfq's position is that there is no confusion. That statement held to ferociously in spite of a very good comment referred to by Qfwfq himself:

Time is dividible into past, present and future.

 

Past is what no longer exists. Therefore it doesn't exist.

 

Future is what doesn't yet exist. Therefore it doesn't exist.

 

Present is nothing but the border separating past and future, an evanescent nothing but where two contiguous entities meet. As both these entities don't exist, neither can the border between them, as it is nothing else than such. Therefore it doesn't exist.

 

Therefore past, present and future don't exist, so time doesn't exist.

Right here you yourself have pointed out the absolutely ridiculous nature of the standard notion of time. I am quite surprised that you cannot keep that difficulty in mind when you discuss the subject. I can only conclude that you are not here to discuss the subject but rather to prevent discussion of the subject. You appear to me to be an authority scared to death that the beliefs you have spent your life acquiring could possibly be erroneous. You are apparently a very knowledgeable man but I think you misuse that knowledge. :D

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

Thanks for being so tactful as to self-censor your highly offensive words. Wow, just imagine, the chutzpah of calling someone intelligent! :)

 

In reaction to your great interest in Minkowski's perspective, I have decided to review this thread to see exactly how that issue actually arose. I certainly was not the one who brought it up.

 

But, back to the Minkowski issue. The first mention of Minkowski was in your post of February 13, top of page 14 of this thread.

I was giving your web page a reading through. How about:

 

Einstein resolved the difficulty brought forth by Maxwell's equations and the

clear requirement of the Lorentz transformations by hypothesizing an alternate

geometry for the universe. His geometric solution to the problem has now

been accepted as incontrovertible. If I hold that Einstein made an error, I

need to display exactly where I think the error was made. Let us return for

a moment to the metric used in Einstein’s space-time, remembering that he

used that metric to define the geometry of the

universe

 

 

Under normal circumstances, a person begins with a geometry designed to

some constraints and then deduces the metric after the fact for the

purpose of mathematical analysis. Einstein relied on the fact that the

metric was consistent with the Lorentz transformations and concluded

that Minkowski geometry had to be the proper geometry to be used to describe

reality.

:)

 

Apart from sleight of hand, what your page says isn't very accurate. It was years later that Minkowski, previously one of Einstein's teachers, taught him what his 1905 paper really meant.

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

Well, I guess my vast knowledge is barely sufficient for me to cover up my stupidity, is it? I don't think I'm doing the worst job of it, though. :)

[Doctordick]

Well, I guess my vast knowledge is barely sufficient for me to cover up my stupidity, is it? I don't think I'm doing the worst job of it, though. :doh:

You said it, I didn't. I don't see where any of your comments have any bearing on the issue being discussed at all. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Qfwfq]

You appear to me to be an authority scared to death that the beliefs you have spent your life acquiring could possibly be erroneous. You are apparently a very knowledgeable man but I think you misuse that knowledge. :doh:

:)