What is time?

[ughaibu]

Logic is the study of reasoning and formalises rules by which ideas may be connected and communicated, logic essentially provides a system whereby the validity of a chain of thought can be pronounced upon. Basic concepts, such as truth values, are convenient for general communicability and human understanding but this doesn't imply a connection with any mootable "true nature of things" existing independent of human perception and thought. Naturally, similar constraints apply to all elements of science.

[questor]

Jehu, are you implying that if you and i and aborigine are sitting looking at a rock, we would no necessarily be viewing the same thing? would we not be using the same senses? would we not all be able to describe the size shape and position of the rock?

[Jehu]

Logic is the study of reasoning and formalises rules by which ideas may be connected and communicated, logic essentially provides a system whereby the validity of a chain of thought can be pronounced upon. Basic concepts, such as truth values, are convenient for general communicability and human understanding but this doesn't imply a connection with any mootable "true nature of things" existing independent of human perception and thought. Naturally, similar constraints apply to all elements of science.

 

As I stated before, if one’s business is to do good science, then one must avoid adopting any ridgid metaphysical view, for such a view, regardless of how many other might hold it, has a tendency to affect ones interpretation of the empirical data. Likewise, the philosopher should refrain from adopting any sort of scientific hypothesis, for this too will interfere with their ability to judge the truth of certain propositions. Now, your statement, as I understand it, implies that you have accepted the view that the “true nature of things” exists “independent of human perception or thought”, and that I, whom have asserted no view whatsoever, must either concede or show evidence that would refute your stance. This, however, is not how things are done. For it is he who makes an assertion who bears the burden of proof, or must concede that his view is merely a supposition. However, this is not to say that his view is wrong, but simply that it is not a fact or law.

 

Regards, Jehu

[ughaibu]

Jehu: I'm not requesting anything of you, I'm pointing out that logic doesn't necessarilly give us more accurate knowledge of the true nature of things than scientific observation does. In particular, Zeno's paradox of the arrow tells us nothing useful about time except that there are unresolved problems in our conception of it.

[Jehu]

Jehu, are you implying that if you and i and aborigine are sitting looking at a rock, we would no necessarily be viewing the same thing? would we not be using the same senses? would we not all be able to describe the size shape and position of the rock?

 

From a naïve point of view I would have to agree with you, but from a phenomenal point of view, I would have to disagree. The reason I say this is that as the three of us cannot occupy the exact same space, then each of our experiences would be slightly different, that is, we would describe the rock as having somewhat different size, shape, and relative position. In any event, I do not mean to imply that we are not perceiving the same thing, I merely question whether the thing we are perceiving is actually what it appears to be, that is say, real. By “real” I mean that it partakes of an absolute, and not merely contingent existence. That which is absolute must be self-contained and unrelated to anything external. But if a thing is unrelated to anything external, it must then be immutable, and so cannot arise, cease, or alter in any way. Furthermore, such a thing can neither affect nor be influenced by anything external, for to be influenced by something is to be related to it. Now, as there is nothing known to science that does not partake of some sort of alteration or interaction, it follows that there is nothing that is real. On the other hand, that which is contingent is dependent upon external causes for its existence, and so is only apparent. Take a shadow, for example, it arises and persists as a result of the interaction of a light source and an opaque object, the one providing it with its perceptible content, the other with its structure. Now, although all three of us might agree upon the size, shape, and position of the shadow, this does not mean that it is real, for there is no entity present, and any properties (stability) or activities (motion) that the shadow might exhibit, belong not to the shadow, but to its external causes.

 

Regards, Jehu

[Jehu]

Jehu: I'm not requesting anything of you, I'm pointing out that logic doesn't necessarilly give us more accurate knowledge of the true nature of things than scientific observation does. In particular, Zeno's paradox of the arrow tells us nothing useful about time except that there are unresolved problems in our conception of it.

I am not so sure of this as you are. What Zeno and Nagarjuna do tell us is whether our prevailing paradigms are logically consistent with our observations, for if they truly are, then no such paradoxes will arise. However, as I am sure you are aware, the power of a prevailing paradigm is formidable, and only the bravest or most foolhardy scientists are willing to risk the consequences of breaking new ground. Now, as I have said from the start, if we are to say anything useful about time, we must stop treating time as though it were a thing-in-itself, for it is but one fundamental element of each and every thing.

 

Regards, Jehu

[modest]

Steve 9 is ambushing multiple threads in astronomy and physics forums. I'm hoping the conversation can be contained here.

 

Well, someone has too much time on their hands.

 

So what is your answer? Is time a physical thing or not?

 

In the interest of supporting everyone’s claims... By the EPR definition of what’s physically real:

 

google book

 

A sufficient condition to identifying an element of physical reality is: “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."

 

I’ll note that this is the more strict definition than “anything that can be measured”

 

I can, by this definition, prove time is real by predicting the value of its future measurement. e.g. using my watch, I know when my alarm clock is about to go off - which it is :eek_big:

 

Now you can take your game elsewhere.

 

-modest

 

Thank you for taking your time to do some research into this topic. I appreciate the effort. Now lets see what you found.

 

In the interest of supporting everyone’s claims... By the EPR definition of what’s physically real:

 

O.K. The first thing I have to say is the definition that you gave is was not intended to be a definition of what is physically real.

 

No, it is intended to allow us to determine if something measured (most naturally something that we can't see) is physically real. As such, it is perfect for this discussion

 

This definition is for the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox. This paradox had to do with the debate between Einstein and Neils Bohr. The debate was over the physical reality of quantum phenomena. There was a fundamental problem of the interpretation of quantum phenomena. This definition was not designed to define the physical reality of time. You will have to go back to your link and read from the beginning of the chapter.

 

Your description of the context of the EPR definition of what's physically real is accurate. Time is a quantum variable and is not excluded from the definition. That definition is often looked to and is more than peer-reviewed. You have no basis for rejecting it or rejecting time as a quantum variable.

 

Like you said this is a more strict definition, it is a very specific definition that was only applicable to the resolution of the question: “Do the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete description of an individual system, or do they embody only the statistical laws governing ensembles?”

 

That is the question that was trying to be answered in the paper with the EPR definition. The paper discusses the physical reality and completeness of quantum phenomenon. As such, it first defines what's physically real and complete. Therefore the definition works for us. In other words, if the quantum variable of time is physically real then we are satisfied that time is physically real. You would say that because time is real in one physics context doesn't make it real in another? That is not a logical objection.

 

So as you can see this was in no way a definition that was to be applied to the common everyday objects that we perceive around us. This is not a definition that would be used to describe the physical reality of a rock for example. Besides, I was not looking for a definition of physical reality.

 

1. This definition applies to the rock
   
2. You are asking if time is physically real and literally asked people to get a dictionary or scientific text book to prove it's real - you in fact asked for exactly what I gave you. There is no point is crying about it now.
   

 

The question is: What definition or observation can you provide that gives evidence to the idea that time is a physical thing.

 

The definition and observation cited above.

 

Predicting a value of a future measurement is not how physical objects are defined. The only thing you can predict is the value of the future movement of a clock, not time.

 

Did you read the above definition of what's physically real? The rest of your argument in your post hinges around how clocks don't measure time because time isn't real. Of course, this is a circular argument that gets you nowhere. By the definition above the clock doesn't have to 'measure' something that's 'seen'. The qualification is that time "corresponds" to the "physical quantity" on the clock. It does.

 

The rest of your post centers around this circular argument.

 

-modest

[steve 9]

Your description of the context of the EPR definition of what's physically real is accurate. Time is a quantum variable and is not excluded from the definition. That definition is often looked to and is more than peer-reviewed. You have no basis for rejecting it or rejecting time as a quantum variable.

 

So you say that time is a variable, a quantum variable. I am asking for evidence or proof that time is a physical thing, and you say that it is a type of variable. Well, I am going to have to inform you that a variable is not a physical thing. Look up the term variable and you will see.

 

The chapter that you linked to is concerned with the nature of electrons, it does not define time. It does not mention that time is a physical thing. And it does not mention that time is a quantum variable. So your statement that time is a quantum variable does not concur with the chapter that you linked to.

 

All physical things are either a particle or a wave. Which is this physical thing you call time. Time is physical in what way?

 

 

PHYSICAL--- of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences. tangible, palpable.

 

Of or relating to material things: our physical environment. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.

 

Relating to the sciences dealing with matter and energy; especially physics; "physical sciences"; "physical laws" 3. having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation"; "surrounded by tangible objects" 4. according with material things or natural laws (other than those peculiar to living matter); "a reflex response to physical stimuli" 5. characterized by energetic bodily activity; "a very physical dance performance" 6. impelled by physical force especially against resistance; "forcible entry"; "a real cop would get physical"; "strong-arm tactics" [syn: forcible] 7. concerned with material things; "physical properties"; "the physical characteristics of the earth"; "the physical size of a computer"

 

Phys"ic*al, a. 1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature; also, of or relating to natural or material things, or to the bodily structure, as opposed to things mental, moral, spiritual, or imaginary; material; natural; as, armies and navies are the physical force of a nation; the body is the physical part of man.

 

Perceptible through a bodily or material organization; cognizable by the senses; external; as, the physical, opposed to chemical, characters of a mineral.

 

 

 

THING -- a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.

Some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described.

 

ENTITY, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

The real or concrete substance of an entity.

An inanimate object.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What has lead you to believe that time is a physical thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest of your argument in your post hinges around how clocks don't measure time because time isn't real. Of course, this is a circular argument that gets you nowhere. By the definition above the clock doesn't have to 'measure' something that's 'seen'. The qualification is that time "corresponds" to the "physical quantity" on the clock. It does.

 

-modest

 

 

I say clocks are man made and are not motivated by a physical thing called time. It is not a circular argument. I stated a plain definition of what a clock is. The definition is what a clock is and ends the debate on how a clock works.

 

You find evidence or proof that time is a physical thing, than you can explain how a clock measures this thing.

 

For the benefit of anyone who has not seen what the definition of clock that is being mentioned I will post it here along with the definition of time.

 

These definitions are based on definitions, references, and observations of time and clocks.

 

CLOCK---- Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.

 

Clocks are a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines.

 

TIME----- Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

Take a look at a clock or any of the devices constructed by man to measure time. Are these devices actually measuring a force or thing called time? If you believe that clocks or any such device measures time then ask yourself, how does this measurement occur. If you were to take the batteries out of a clock it will no longer work and therefore no longer “measure” time. Clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides how a clock will move, not time.

 

 

O.K. Modest, just show some evidence or proof that time is a physical thing according to the definitions of physical and thing.

 

Thank You.

 

steve 9

[InfiniteNow]

<cough>

One trick pony...

</cough>

 

Steve 9's Posts at Hypography

 

 

Steve 9,

 

As you've been told REPEATEDLY elsewhere, your entire premise is false, and it inherently REQUIRES a preferred reference frame. There is no such thing. There is no absolute or preferred frame, and once you are able to wrap your mind around this, much of your misframed questions and confusion will be ameliorated.

[modest]

This about sums it up:

 

 

-modest

[Southtown]

Very perceptive, modest. Typical repercussions of undefined terms, such as "real" in this case.

[HydrogenBond]

Time is a thing that can be photographed. The way this is done is by having the shutter speed too slow in a scene where there is motion or a change of state. The result is motion blur, which will gives us the perception of motion or a change of state in a still photo. What we are seeing is the affect of the residual time left in the photo due to the slow shutter speed. The distance is not affected by the shutter speed so it remains constant.

 

Picture this scenario. There are a group of cheerleaders static posing, with one of the cheerleaders twirling a baton. If we use a moderate shutter speed, the static gals are clearly defined by any coordinate system we set up. The baton's position is indeterminate since it appears to occupy a range of positions, at the same time, because of the motion blur. What we are seeing is the affect of that piece of space-time being out of proportion because of the excess time within the photo. If we increase the shutter speed, to stop the baton, we lose the indeterminacy.

[InfiniteNow]

Interesting visual, First Atomic Element of the periodic table Connection. It works in the macro world, but unfortunately completely falls apart on microscopic scales. In other words, your analogy doesn't scale.

[Tolouse]

<cough>

One trick pony...

</cough>

 

Steve 9's Posts at Hypography

 

 

Steve 9,

 

As you've been told REPEATEDLY elsewhere, your entire premise is false, and it inherently REQUIRES a preferred reference frame. There is no such thing. There is no absolute or preferred frame, and once you are able to wrap your mind around this, much of your misframed questions and confusion will be ameliorated.

 

good word usage

 

time isn't absolute or defined, but i think rather a moment of space

[johnfp]

time could be considered to be the passing of events, if nothing is happening who is to say that time is passing? even the thought of 'is time passing' takes up time, so time must have past :) its fun to play little time games in your head but man it can be wierd!

 

heres an interesting view on it.

When thinking back to a point in time, say this morning, how can you be sure that that event actually occured? sure your mind says it happened becuase you remember it, but at any one point in time the universe could be created or altered with those memory's 'preloaded' into your mind...

 

I have to agree but I will add my opinion. It is a sampled sequence of events. Those events are not ALL events but the sequence of events of a particular area of study/interest/view/etc.

 

In other words, if we want to review how the current theories of physics evolved, we can match a sampling (recorded) series of those events over time. If we wanted to look at the process of a stimulated emission of a photon, we can plot its behavior based on time. If we watched a pot of coffee brewing we could measure the status of the completion of the brewing based on individual samplings of the events.

[HydrogenBond]

I like the idea of time being a potential. We can photograph the affect of this time potential on distance and matter, even in a still photo via motion blur. This extra time potential sort of messes up the clarity of the coordinate system but only where the time potential is acting, to create motion or change of state. We can also solve equations in terms of time to show it has to be a potential.

 

For example, say we start with kinetic energy K=E=1/2MV2. If we solve for time, we get the square root of {(M/2E)/d2}=t. This means time is a function of energy and mass which are both considered tangible things. If time is only a reference variable is combining mass and energy imaginary? Is that a magic trick? It is sort of saying if we add whip cream onto strawberries, the result is in your imagination as a philosophical concept. While we discuss this, a little child eats the combination of whip cream and strawberries. They say, he has a taste for philosophy. But don't worry about spoiling his appetite for physics, because it isn't real, since it is all based on our imagination.

[Kayra]

CraigD, a question on your original premise.

If all the past time/space instances still exist, do all the future ones exist as well, and this wave just move us between reference frames (pages)?

 

Do you see the future frames as non-existent until the now and created based on the previous frames inertial reference (What the hell is inertia without time?)

 

Wouldn't the creation of the previous "Now" frame seem to create a back pressure to move us forward in time? (50/50 chance of moving in either direction, but the one behind us exists so we can not move in that direction?) The result being that we surf through time in a forward direction.

 

Wouldn't this natural frequency of the universe have as a side effect much of the quantum weirdness we see as well as including things like Planck’s constant?

 

OK, if these questions do not prove how little I know of science I do not know what will :)