What is time?

[Qfwfq]

You certainly seem capable of following me as you have come up with the majority of the issues I start with on your own.

Actually, I suspect that Jehu got some of what he says from Kant's ideas.

 

Again, (patiently) Transcendental Aesthetics usw...

[IMAMONKEY!]

So knowledge and awareness are the two basic principles to the nature of existence of a thing... Since we are aware of time it thus must exist, and since we have knowledge of its existence it exists indefinetely. But that is a little flawed... What if tachyons didnt exist or some other form of matter as yet undiscovered. We are aware of unseen forces in this universe and we can speculate as to what they are but does that really make them exist? like time?

 

I dont know... You clarified it very well but i guess the problem is i overthink things... :note:

[Little Bang]

I guess my definition of time was taken as a joke or it went over everyone's head.

[Little Bang]

For the sake of discussion let’s assume that there was a beginning of the universe. At some point the first photon or photons came into existence. Further, for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that each photon has some sort of clock that we can observer. If we look at the clock of a photon when it first comes into existence we will see that the clock reads zero. Now we will move forward to now. When we look at the clock of the photon we see that it still reads zero. This implies that every possible event the photon can have an interaction with has happened instantly from the point of view of the photon. This would also imply that all future events have been experienced by the photon. One possible way to explain this would be if all possible events were created instantly at the beginning.

Your next obvious question would be, “Ok, how does this give us a description of time?”

Let’s look at a small volume of space in the shape of a sphere located somewhere in the universe.

We fill this sphere with black marbles. The black marbles represent all possible events in the sphere. At the very center of the sphere we place one white marble. The white marble represents anyone’s life at some point in time. All black marbles touching the white marble represent those events that have the highest probability of occurring. If your consciousness makes a decision that makes one of those black marbles a reality than that black marble turns white representing your now. It’s this shift that we perceive as time.

[Doctordick]

If by “elements of a set” you mean “a collection or group of independent things” I would have to object, for we do not yet know the nature of the relationship between these elements.

I am afraid I would have to object to your objection. It seems to me that your proposition presumes that there is only one possible solution to the question, “what is the law or principle whereby those elements are related”. It is my opinion that this is an erroneous assumption made by everyone. Could you perhaps prove to me that there exists but one unique valid “law or principle whereby those elements are related”? :shrug:

The term, “appear” is used here to indicate that we do not know that the elements “structure and content” have their origin in the thing, for we have not yet demonstrated that there is a thing-in-itself.

I think you misunderstand the reason I wished to drop the term “appear”. I wanted to reserve the set C to represent only that which “is real”. And use the set D to represent that which appears to be real but are actually a consequence of our understanding of A which could perhaps be erroneous. :evil:

The concept of matter does not figure in the given definition of the term, “nature”, other than to illustrate that the elements of content and structure ( mass and spatial distribution) are implicit in the definition of matter. It is important to establish this fact, for it is conventionally held that matter is the fundamental substance, from which all other “things” arise, including mentation - although this is not necessarily my position.

It is my position that “matter” is an advanced concept and, as such, makes many deep and profound assumptions which we should not be making. ;)

Please bear with us as we have as yet been unable to establish a common definition for the term, “nature”, however, with your help, and the other participants, I am certain we will sort that all out.

Please explain to me the need for the term “nature”. It seems to me that it again arises with innumerable inherent assumptions, the very issue we should be striving to avoid. In essence, if the term “nature” is valuable, I feel we should be able to come up with a procedure for defining it in terms of the elements of C and D. :esheriff:

In any event, I hope that we will all consent to set aside our own particular views, in favor of an enquiry that is free to go wherever reason may lead it.

I hope you can understand that all of my comments are directly based on wanting to leave the argument open to go wherever reason may lead: i.e., all of my complaints are with issues I think close down the options in one way or another. Thus they are counter to your own proposed freedom of enquiry. :hyper:

Actually, I suspect that Jehu got some of what he says from Kant's ideas.

That’s nice! Actually, I don’t see where one gets their ideas as an important factor at all. The important issue is what their ideas are. :(

So knowledge and awareness are the two basic principles to the nature of existence of a thing... Since we are aware of time it thus must exist, and since we have knowledge of its existence it exists indefinetely. But that is a little flawed... What if tachyons didnt exist or some other form of matter as yet undiscovered. We are aware of unseen forces in this universe and we can speculate as to what they are but does that really make them exist? like time?

We need an approach which will allow for all the issues you bring up. And you cannot over think things; what you can do is try to make all your beliefs make sense. The latter is almost guaranteed to fail as it amounts to an attempt to justify a religion and is simply not a scientific approach. :(

I guess my definition of time was taken as a joke or it went over everyone's head.

Not quite, in many respects your definition is almost identical to my own view. You could find my definition in this thread if it weren’t so long. I say that everyone defines their own time in terms of the events they have experienced: the past is what we know, the future is what we don’t know and the present is an addition from what we don’t know to what we do. The most important issue inherent in our views is the fact that it does not presume you and I follow the same path at all. :hihi:

 

Your next obvious question would be, “Ok, how does this give us a description of time?”

Very clear and exactly what I suggest when I say that “time” is a mental construct devised to track the order that you come to learn things. One difference I would have with you is the presumption that the events be in spatial contact. This is another assumption which is counter to the freedom of enquiry we are interested in pursuing. To put any issue above investigation is to scuttle objective science. :eek:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

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

by Anonymous

[Little Bang]

The spatial contact was only used as an illustration. If the universe is set up the way I suggest then it also shows why the arrow of time always points in the same direction, toward the highest probability. Time is a varible in the universe. the slowest it can move is zero, the fastest it can run we don't know, although I suspect that value to be infinite. We keep looking for a way to unite all the forces in the universe. In order to do that we must find a relationship between all four forces and the only thing that is related to all four is the rate at which events occur (time). How to use that information, I don't know. I assure you that I don't have the math skills to accomplish that feat.

[Jehu]

You guys are making this all very confusing. Care to clarify?

 

This is most unfortunate, for it is our intention to make it easier.

 

Before we are able to determine what is the “true nature of anything”, we must settle upon a precise definition of what the term, “nature”, means. Unless we do so, each of us will enter into the enquiry with our own personal understanding of the term, and consequently, will be unable to understand precisely what another means by the term. Accordingly, we began with the Oxford Dictionary definition, which reflects the widest possible conventional meaning of the term. This led us to the conclusion that the term, “nature”, implies a set of fundamental elements (essential qualities or characteristics), and a relational principle. Our subsequent analysis of the term, “elements” led us to the conclusion that the term must have two distinct sets of elements, one set pertaining to the perception of a thing (awareness), and the other set pertaining to its being thought about (knowledge).

 

Hope this has helped, if not, please specify precisely what point(s) you would like clarified?

[Little Bang]

Why would you duplicate your post Jehu?

[skuzie]

I will stick to the original question and spill out my thoughts on it ..

Time = Change :confused:

 

Imagine a Universe where nothing ever changed, would time still have a meaning then? Time is a concept created by people in order to describe this constant ever going change that we witness around us. If things change faster we experience time passing by faster, if things change slower we experience time passing by slower. Imagine if our brains could 'compute' everything much faster, then 'time' for us would slow down as everything around us would change much slower in relation to our brain feeding external changes.

 

Think about this .. heat/speed/time = change

Heat is observed by the speed of the particles within the substance, which is really change.

Speed, or velocity, is really an object changing its displacement in relation to all other objects, so deep down it is really change.

 

So yes I agree with Little Bang time is really a perception, but at its essence it is really just change. :Alien:

[Jehu]

I am afraid I would have to object to your objection. It seems to me that your proposition presumes that there is only one possible solution to the question, “what is the law or principle whereby those elements are related”. It is my opinion that this is an erroneous assumption made by everyone. Could you perhaps prove to me that there exists but one unique valid “law or principle whereby those elements are related”? :hihi:

 

I think you misunderstand the reason I wished to drop the term “appear”. I wanted to reserve the set C to represent only that which “is real”. And use the set D to represent that which appears to be real but are actually a consequence of our understanding of A which could perhaps be erroneous. ;)

 

It is my position that “matter” is an advanced concept and, as such, makes many deep and profound assumptions which we should not be making. :(

Please explain to me the need for the term “nature”. It seems to me that it again arises with innumerable inherent assumptions, the very issue we should be striving to avoid. In essence, if the term “nature” is valuable, I feel we should be able to come up with a procedure for defining it in terms of the elements of C and D. :)

 

I hope you can understand that all of my comments are directly based on wanting to leave the argument open to go wherever reason may lead: i.e., all of my complaints are with issues I think close down the options in one way or another. Thus they are counter to your own proposed freedom of enquiry. :

 

Please, it is not my intention to direct this enquiry toward any preconceived notion of time or reality, I am merely trying to establish precise definitions so that we may communicate more efficiently. Nevertheless, let me try to explain the reasoning behind the disputed proposition. When we used the phrase, “the nature of a thing”, we mean the nature of things in general, and not the nature of a specific thing. If the “nature of a thing” comprises some number of “primitive elements” (i.e., qualities or characteristics that are essential to the thing’s being perceived or thought about), these elements must necessarily be related. Were this not so, then the elements themselves would be independent “things”, and therefore, could not be the primitive elements of all things, for being themselves independent, they need not be elements of one another. Consequently, it may be asserted that the primitive elements cannot themselves be things. Now, as we do not know as yet how many elements are involved, we cannot speculate as to the number of relationships that they partake of, hence, we left the matter open. However, if you feel it would ally potential confusion, let us restate the proposition, “what are the law(s) or principle(s) whereby those elements are related”.

 

Again, we are not yet in a position to make any assertions as to what is real and what is not.

 

Once more, it was not the concept of matter that we wanted to draw attention to, but the conventional definition. However, we shall agreed to refrain from any further use the term until such a time as it is absolutely necessary.

 

Any inherent assumptions arise out of our employing the term in a broad and personal manner, thus it is critical that we agree on a precise definition. It is hoped, that once such a definition is in place, it, along with the primitive elements and their relationship(s), will provide us with the tools needed to see things for what they truly are – whatever that might be.

 

I fully understand your motive, and deeply appreciate your input.

[arkain101]

Time is a concept created by people in order to describe this constant ever going change that we witness around us.

 

what about time being a dimension. A dimension that we unknowingly titled time.

 

Time in theory has a freezing point and a maximum point. Things at C have no time, things at rest have maximum time flow, in relativity.

 

Think about these observations.

 

Light/photons do not experience time in their observation frame it does not change. Matter does, it changes.

 

Things that experience time flow change, have mass, have gravity, have inertia, have energy, and have a maximum velocity and an ability to be at rest.

 

Things that do not experience time flow, do not change, have no mass, do not create gravity, have energy, and are trapped in a constant velocity window of C.

 

In these two catagories is time. It is a versitile finite value. On one side we have energy operating in a bend of time, and on the other side we have energy operating in a singularity of time (ie, frozen from change).

 

The posistion of these forms of energy is irrelevent but the velocity IS relavent and directly perportional to its posistion in time.

 

So time has a Point a and z. rest and frozen flow. Constants live in this finite value and should share a direct relationship.

 

Chewing that for awhile..

[CraigD]

Think about these observations.

 

Light/photons do not experience time in their observation frame it does not change. Matter does, it changes.

My first thought about this observation is that it’s not accurate – one of the major attributes of a photon, its frequency (or, equivalently, energy) does change inversely to its gravitational potential energy. A photon entering a gravity well (such as the vicinity of a planet) is blueshifted, one leaving, redshifted. While small for most gravity wells compared to the red/blueshift due to relative motion, this effect is real and measurable. See ”gravitational redshift”

 

I remain intrigued by the observation that, according to a naïve (not necessarily a derogatory term in science) application of Special Relativity, photons are in a sense “outside of time”, but haven’t yet experienced any satisfying insights from it. Hopefully some will come.

[skuzie]

Here are my thoughts:

 

Imagine a universe with a single frozen object of whatever, if that object is traveling near the speed of light or is at rest has really no relevance, to an outside observer there is only one single frozen object and there is nothing else to measure the object velocity against, velocity or time has no meaning in this universe.

 

Now imagine a universe which is the same as above but with an additional photon. Naturally the photon is traveling at the speed of light in this void with the frozen object in the vicinity. Now some interesting questions arise, is the photon really traveling at the speed of light or is it stationary and the frozen object is traveling at the speed of light? Everything is relative, nothing really has ‘velocity’... everything just displaces itself against everything else, at least that is my understanding.

 

Are photons changing? sure due to the external forces such as gravity, but then again they dont experience 'time' as time stops at the speed of light?? not sure how to explain that? could it be that photons are really not 'moving' at all and everything else around them is moving? Probably not but in any case it makes you think doesnt it?

 

So, are photons 'outside of time'? I think its really an ambiguous question, suppose there are three objects A, B, and C. All three objects are lined up beside each other object A and C then start to travel away from object B in opposite directions at 1/2 the speed of light in relation to object B. Now wait a minute, object A is traveling at the speed of light in relation to object C? Now suppose all three objects start twiddling their thumbs B) .. so object A will observe object C being stationary, and will observe object B twiddling their thumbs much slower than itself? it all makes sense to me but what about if both objects A and C were traveling at the speed of light away from object B, does that mean A is traveling 2 X speed of light?? im going to ponder this for a while ... and what about black holes .. they 'change' everything even if your travelling at the speed of light :confused:

 

Any thoughts on the above reasoning?

[arkain101]

I remain intrigued by the observation that, according to a naïve (not necessarily a derogatory term in science) application of Special Relativity, photons are in a sense “outside of time”, but haven’t yet experienced any satisfying insights from it. Hopefully some will come.

 

If we assume time is a finite flow value. This is, it has a maximum flow rate that curves towards a minimum flow rate which leads to an frozen stopped rate, escaped or outside.

In this finite value of time, we relate them directly to the constants we find in nature.

If light is considered 'outside of time' we should be able to describe how and why light is a constant velocity in all reference frames. If it does not originate in a value of time flow it can interact through any point of rate in the time flow scale.

 

Finding the relationship between the finite time flow scale and the constant velocity coupled with the mass or energy involved in the system together, may describe mathamatically why the constants are what they are, and how it goes about achieving its strange behavior. Of being of the same velocity to all reference frames.

 

The window of transitioning from 'IN' time to 'OUTSIDE' in this concept would be some kind of zero point, or intersection which I naievly guess would be the underlying constant force for nature.

The interesting thing is this time bend can be displayed in a geometric way showing a 90 degree operation. Nature has as far as I understand several displays of 90 degree relationships. Such as electric current and magnetism...

 

The most I can do with this is lay out the idea, and leave it up to anyone who is interested to apply and play with this.

[HydrogenBond]

Energy is not out of time but is what defines time. The time aspect of energy or frequency is precisely defined, and is even quantized. The change in the state of events is viewed by light or energy emisions, so we can see them or measure them. This energy defines the time. For example, nuclear events happen quick because the parallel energy has a very high frequency. Electron transitions within atoms are much slower due to the lower frequency of the energy. Long time events like the time between birthdays, is measured within the miind using long cascades of chemical changes, i.e., frequency summation, that brings the body from one state to another.

[arkain101]

I understand what you mean. But, you are refering to time with a different meaning, a problem shown in this topic several times.

 

You refer to passing of time. "The change in the state of events is viewed by light or energy emisions, so we can see them or measure them. "

 

I refered to the dimension called time. "In relativity where time is a dimension that affects matter that passes through it with different amounts of energy."

[Indroneil Ghosh]

The time 'velocity' of an object does depend on the spatial velocity it is going in. It depends in something of an inverse relation.

 

Does this mean that time dimensions and spatial dimensions are intricately connected?