What is time?

[steve 9]

Don't feed the trolls

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

 

 

 

Still no answer. What are you doing on this thread? What is your definition of time. I have given my definition of time, I have participated in the discussion, what can you contribute?

 

What if I was to respond in the manner that you are to a basic question? Who is the one who is NOT participating? Really What scientific point are you trying to get across? From your actions, what are we to conclude?

 

What if you asked me a question and I responded in the way that you are right now. Would you want me banned for just being on a thread and not contributing anything? Should I follow your example of how to participate in a science thread? What are you doing?

 

Look, you have still not answered a basic physics question. You have avoided my question.

[steve 9]

Don't feed the trolls

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

There is a rule special written for this kind of thing:

 

 

Quote:

Typical reasons for banning

#5: Trolling - generally being rude and annoying, and contributing very little

[steve 9]

You need to offer something rather than ambushing people continuously with the same question that is nothing more than trolling bait. There is a rule special written for this kind of thing:

 

 

What have I done that can be defined as rude? Rude to you or rude in general?

[steve 9]

You need to offer something rather than ambushing people continuously with the same question that is nothing more than trolling bait. There is a rule special written for this kind of thing:

 

Typical reasons for banning

#5: Trolling - generally being rude and annoying, and contributing very little

~modest

 

I have asked a question in the standard manner and have not gotten an answer. I am just asking a question, if I have to repeat the question it is only because I did not recieve an answer.

 

What have I done to be annoying to you?

[steve 9]

You need to offer something rather than ambushing people continuously with the same question that is nothing more than trolling bait. There is a rule special written for this kind of thing:

 

Typical reasons for banning

#5: Trolling - generally being rude and annoying, and contributing very little

~modest

 

Contributing very little? Explain please?

[steve 9]

I've already answered and supported that last time you trolled these forums.

 

 

Where have you done this? The first time you posted on this thread is on page 28 #279. I asked if time was a physical thing and you gave no direct answer. Your answer did not state yes or no. Anyone can look if they want, see if you can find a definite answer. There has not been any answer from that point where you support your answer, because there is no answer.

 

Here would be an example: Time is a real physical thing because .......

 

Or, Time is not a physical thing because .......

 

Or you could say that my definition of time is incorrect because .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you failed to do last time is answer anyone's questions in a manner that demonstrates any willingness to converse.

 

Give an example where I failed to answer ANYONE'S question in a manner that demonstrates any willingness to converse. Look at InfinityNow's recent responses to my questions, is that a "willingness" to converse?

 

Look just because I ask a question you do not like, gives you no right to threaten to ban me. This is a place to discuss science, and that is what I am doing. I have stated my view on the subject of time and have written much in response to my statement. Anyone can see this.

 

 

 

There are three fundamental units in physics:

• Time
  
• Space
  
• Mass
  

Which of those do you believe exist and why?

 

Science is not a belief or faith. If any of those things physically exist then science will have proof of this through experiment and observation. If time exists as a physical thing then science will have an empirical and precise description of it. Where is this description? To think that time is a physical thing that exists, against all of the evidence against it's existance, would be based on a desire for it to be so, and not based on any scientific evidence.

 

If you disagree with my definition of time or my statement that time is just a consideration, then just show me where I am incorrect with some physical evidence, observation, or scientific description. Is this being rude or annoying? No.

 

I have asked a very basic question regarding a basic term used in physics, I would imagine that there should be overwhelming evidence and proof that states that time is a physical thing that exists in this universe.

 

I say that time is a consideration and not in any way a physical thing.

 

What evidence or observation do you know of that states otherwise?

[modest]

Time, space and matter (when I say matter I include energy and electric charge) are all real quantities that exist in our universe. Time and space form the geometry that governs matter which is the interaction of all physical or tangible reality. As such, it is ever present and never absent. It is impossible to describe any real system in our universe without time, space, and matter/energy in the description.

 

Consider the possibility of measuring matter and space without time. Without time there is no physical existence, no temperature, no properties of matter to measure - such a thing is impossible. Consider measuring time and matter without space. Impossible to measure something that has no space to exist. Considering time and space without matter is more difficult- but when Einstein developed general relativity it truly showed the impossibility. I won’t get into the particulars except to point you here: Hole argument where it is described that distance cannot be though of as separation of coordinates only, but require two test particles.

 

I therefore believe nothing is more basic, more real, and more necessary to our universe than space, time, and matter. Nothing is real if it lacks any one. As an example, here is your description of 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.

You use two words here “movement” and “velocity” to describe time. Velocity is change in space over change in time. Your definition of time therefore recognizes the necessity of its existence.

 

As both your definition of time and my idea of time require it to be real we have a common footing from which to advance this subject productively. The next question becomes: what are the properties of space and time. As you say:

 

What do they look like? Do they have a color? Are they a wave or a solid? From where do they eminate? How much space do they occupy? How long is it? How wide is it?

 

The examples you give, however, are properties of energy and matter. Space and time are fundamentally different from matter and energy therefore none of these properties apply. Space and time have different properties that equally would not pertain to matter and energy.

 

I can give some properties of spacetime, but I must qualify this by saying - some of these properties are perhaps only applicable to the model describing spacetime while others clearly apply to space and time themselves.

• all dimensions are orthogonal to other dimensions
  
• Time is different from space in a manner reflected here: [math]S^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2[/math]
  
• Time and space describe motion (a geodesic)
  
• Time and space influence gravity
  
• Energy curves spacetime
  
• Time is not symmetric
  
• Time is unidirectional
  
• Space is not unidirectional
  

 

As you can clearly see, these properties are different from "color" and "solid" and the other examples you give.

 

Much of the history of physics is the discovery of these properties that pertain to the fundamental units and how they relate to one another. For example: What is the best way to describe force? Mass times acceleration has the units:

[math]\mbox{Force} = \frac{ \mbox{Kg} \times \mbox{m}}{\mbox{s}^2}[/math]

which is mass times space divided by time squared. Therefore it is very useful to understand how the fundamental units interact. To understand relativity and time dilation we need to understand the structure of spacetime. The consistency of the speed of light is a property of space, time, and matter. The relationship Einstein gave these things as matter moves is very insightful and very useful.

 

I guess to sum up, I'd say space and time are physical. They are a necessary part of the universe and that makes them physical. But, they are not tangible - they do not share the properties of matter that would allow them to have that description.

 

Can you think of any useful ways of describing how these things relate to one another?

 

~modest

[Little Bang]

The ground state vibration of the cesium atom at absolute zero is zero. Meaning, it experiences zero time, zero inertia and zero weight. This obviously is a testable hypothesis.

[modest]

The ground state vibration of the cesium atom at absolute zero is zero. Meaning, it experiences zero time, zero inertia and zero weight. This obviously is a testable hypothesis.

 

The third law of thermodynamics would disagree with you. Absolute zero is not reachable and therefore not a testable hypothesis.

 

Also, does an atom at absolute zero affect the gravitational field? I don't see why it would not - but without a functional quantum theory of gravity an argument could be made either way.

 

My best argument would be that putting something at zero kelvin will cut it off from the universe no more than a black hole cuts off its matter from the universe. Yet, a black hole can still communicate its gravity to the universe. By this reasoning, an atom at zero K would communicate its mass to the universe - and thus, it would not be "nothing".

 

~modest

[Little Bang]

I realize that we cannot reach absolute zero but we can get very close. I am relatively certain that if an object is weighed as it approaches zero its weight will go down. I am in the process of writing a comprehensive explanation of gravity and inertia. When I am down I will post it under the thread " The magical creation of the photon".

[modest]

I realize that we cannot reach absolute zero but we can get very close. I am relatively certain that if an object is weighed as it approaches zero its weight will go down. I am in the process of writing a comprehensive explanation of gravity and inertia. When I am down I will post it under the thread " The magical creation of the photon".

 

That sounds really good LB. Have you researched the relativistic link between kinetic energy and mass? Well, I shouldn't jump the gun. I'll let you get your post together in "The magical creation of the photon" and then we can discuss it there. But, it sounds fascinating.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

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.

 

A mass of uranium at a total stop in relation to every other part of the universe or even in a universe by it's self would still measure time whether it moved or not. time is not just a measurement of motion it is a real direction that all parts of the universe move through at right angles to the three spatial dimensions we normally think of as space.

[Moontanman]

The ground state vibration of the cesium atom at absolute zero is zero. Meaning, it experiences zero time, zero inertia and zero weight. This obviously is a testable hypothesis.

 

What about a radioactive cesium atom, it would mesure off time no matter how cold it was.

[Moontanman]

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.

 

No, time can be measured even in the total absence of motion. time is the state or dimension that allows motion.

[HydrogenBond]

Photons display wavelength and frequency. Inherent within the physical phenomena called frequency is a time increment that can be measured. Before there were any concept of time or any clocks these clocks existed. They are not dependant on human convention. Time potential is what you would get if you could remove the wavelength affect from energy. If you did that, energy would not be able to act like a wave. It would need to quantum jump as it moves at C.

 

Quantum affects, like electron energy levels, appear to reflect time potential. There is a wave break. Here is the irony, time potential acts in zero measured time. Its association with distance gives us measured time.

[Little Bang]

Not true Moon. At zero absolute it would emit no radiation.

[Moontanman]

Not true Moon. At zero absolute it would emit no radiation.

 

So you are saying that temperature has an effect on nuclear decay? No particles could be emitted or the emission of particles would be affected by low temps? I'm not if that is or could be true, it would have some odd repercussions like radioactive atoms in low temperature interstellar clouds not being subject to the laws of nuclear decay and having different half lives than atoms at warmer temps?