What is time?

[Boerseun]

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?

Not temperature as such, but absolute zero. Think of it as the speed of light for thermometers - an awesome idea, but unreachable. And funny things happen close to it. All motion in the atom stops, therefore no radiation is possible. But the mass, like a black hole, will still be there and be communicated to the rest of the universe regardless. Just a pity reaching it is impossible, so its all speculation either way.

[steve 9]

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:

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

You have stated that I have failed to answer ANYONE'S questions.

 

 

Posted by Modest page 33 post 323.

I've already answered and supported that last time you trolled these forums. What you failed to do last time is answer anyone's questions in a manner that demonstrates any willingness to converse.

 

What is your evidence? You have made this statement and I have made inquiries into your accusations and you have not given any. Why don't you let it be known why you decided to make a statement that I have failed to Answer ANYONE'S question. You said it, so make your case.

 

 

In the same post you quote reasons for someone to be banned from this forum and you directed them at me.

 

Typical reasons for banning

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

 

State your case! You have accused me of this, now give the facts.

 

Everyone can see that what you stated is not the true, but by all means please give your evidence. I have made inquiries into your accusations and have not seen a response. Instead your next post after your accusations and my inquiries, is a post about your explanation of time, space and matter. You act as though you never made these accusations by the fact that you are continuing to converse with me. You say that I contribute very little, and yet you feel compelled to responded to my "very little".

 

I would really like to answer your last post and continue to have a conversation with you on the subject of time, but not until you explain your case against me, I can not just ignore it like you have.

 

You have (to quote a famous film) drawn first blood. Now I get my day in court. Do not just accuse me of something without some kind of evidence. What is your evidence? Either show it or apologize.

 

 

Thank You.

 

john6zx

[steve 9]

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.

 

So are you saying that time is a medium in which objects move through ?

[steve 9]

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

 

 

 

Is time a state (quality of being) or a dimension?

 

Which is it? A state or a dimension?

 

Is a dimension a real physical thing? If you say that it is, show scientific proof, a definition that states this idea, or some reference that shows through some sort of test or observation that a spatial dimension is a physical object.

 

Time allows motion. What reference is this from?

 

So the converse of this statement would be that time can prevent motion.

 

You really need to explain yourself on this. There is no scientific evidence to back up what you are saying.

 

 

You say time allows motion -- yet there is no scientific evidence to back this up.

 

Some are alluding to the idea that time is more than a consideration, they say that it is more of a thing that exists in the physical universe. There is no definition or reference that would support this view.

 

I will ask all concerned, is time a physical thing? Yes/No.

 

If yes then just give some science that backs this up, thats all, it is really easy to do. If you have the idea that time is a physical thing then just let this forum know where you got this data, what is the evidence?

[Moontanman]

So are you saying that time is a medium in which objects move through ?

 

Yes

[Moontanman]

Is time a state (quality of being) or a dimension?

 

Which is it? A state or a dimension?

 

Dimension, I was thinking that state and dimension were the same thing but i see that they are not so dimension is what i had in mind.

 

Is a dimension a real physical thing? If you say that it is, show scientific proof, a definition that states this idea, or some reference that shows through some sort of test or observation that a spatial dimension is a physical object.

 

I'm honestly not sure what you mean, you can measure distance in three spatial dimensions and time measures the four spatial dimension so if you can measure it then it's real. As for it being a physical object i would say no it is not, it has no mass no substance but it doesn't need those things to be real. Death is real but it has not substance nor is it an object. Entropy is real but it has no substance nor is it an object.

 

Time allows motion. What reference is this from?

 

Yes, if you freeze time you stop all motion.

 

So the converse of this statement would be that time can prevent motion.

 

No stopping time can freeze all motion. Time allows motion.

 

 

You really need to explain yourself on this. There is no scientific evidence to back up what you are saying.

 

So far you haven't presented any scientific evidence to back up anything you have said either. You first.

 

 

You say time allows motion -- yet there is no scientific evidence to back this up.

 

Some are alluding to the idea that time is more than a consideration, they say that it is more of a thing that exists in the physical universe. There is no definition or reference that would support this view.

 

I will ask all concerned, is time a physical thing? Yes/No.

 

If yes then just give some science that backs this up, thats all, it is really easy to do. If you have the idea that time is a physical thing then just let this forum know where you got this data, what is the evidence?

 

You say that time is just a consideration can you back that up?

[Moontanman]

Is time a state (quality of being) or a dimension?

 

Which is it? A state or a dimension?

 

Is a dimension a real physical thing? If you say that it is, show scientific proof, a definition that states this idea, or some reference that shows through some sort of test or observation that a spatial dimension is a physical object.

 

Time allows motion. What reference is this from?

 

So the converse of this statement would be that time can prevent motion.

 

You really need to explain yourself on this. There is no scientific evidence to back up what you are saying.

 

 

You say time allows motion -- yet there is no scientific evidence to back this up.

 

Some are alluding to the idea that time is more than a consideration, they say that it is more of a thing that exists in the physical universe. There is no definition or reference that would support this view.

 

I will ask all concerned, is time a physical thing? Yes/No.

 

If yes then just give some science that backs this up, thats all, it is really easy to do. If you have the idea that time is a physical thing then just let this forum know where you got this data, what is the evidence?

 

Not temperature as such, but absolute zero. Think of it as the speed of light for thermometers - an awesome idea, but unreachable. And funny things happen close to it. All motion in the atom stops, therefore no radiation is possible. But the mass, like a black hole, will still be there and be communicated to the rest of the universe regardless. Just a pity reaching it is impossible, so its all speculation either way.

 

If you think of absolute zero as the speed of light for thermometers then it's effects should come into play before it is reached as in time dilation fro the speed of light. so how close to absolute zero do you have to go to see nuclear decay slow down?

[modest]

If you think of absolute zero as the speed of light for thermometers then it's effects should come into play before it is reached as in time dilation fro the speed of light. so how close to absolute zero do you have to go to see nuclear decay slow down?

 

I would disagree with Boerseun and LB on this. As far as I know - There has never been an observed relationship between radioactive decay and temperature. The same decay rate is observed from the coldest to the hottest samples. Well, the hottest until you have a nuclear reaction I should say. I think this is a good indication that zero kelvin or absolute zero would not inhibit decay. Electrons would still "orbit" and nuclear processes would still work. In other words the ground state of an atom is not zero.

 

Then again, it's not something we can test. So... :tongue:

 

~modest

[modest]

Dimension, I was thinking that state and dimension were the same thing but i see that they are not so dimension is what i had in mind.

 

Interestingly,

 

Photons or electrons passed through a double slit display an interference pattern in the spatial dimensions. There is some uncertainty as to which slit or which spot in the spatial dimension the photon passes through. An interesting twist on this, the double slit in time performed not too long ago demonstrates an interference pattern that is a result of some uncertainty between two times. Where the normal double slit experiment has the photon not knowing which of two spatial options it used, the double slit in time has the photon not knowing which of two temporal options it used. An interference pattern is the result of both experiments.

 

This lends credence (at least in my mind) to the idea that time is a dimension having some space-like properties.

 

I also think length contraction and time dilation would be another way to support this.

 

different link:

New look for classic experiment - physicsworld.com

[modest]

I've been reading an oldie and a goodie:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/4843-moments-events.html

 

and had some more thoughts on this.

 

If an “event” specifies the temporal condition of something and “time” is the set of all events then I see no reason why “time” cannot also be a dimension and be represented with coordinates the way a dimension is. In other words, if time is a collection of slices of ‘now’ where any one would separate past and future then all those slices make up something we call time. Thinking of time this way does not seem incompatible with thinking of time as a dimension.

 

Also, “time as a dimension” is an axiom. It is not by itself proven to be empirically true nor do I know that is possible. But, entire scientific disciplines are successfully built on that axiom and they are empirically proven. Saying what if time is not a dimension questions how relativity and many other things could work built on a false axiom.

 

By relativity, space and time are linked. The perception of one depends on the perception of the other. This is proven. A clock on the top of a mountain runs faster than one at its base. Whatever definition we give time and however we describe it we must allow for it to be connected to and related to space. I think combining time and space into Minkowski-like spacetime does this well.

 

The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.

 

-Hermann Minkowski 1908

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

It comes down to convention. If we postulated time was a thing and gave this the same creative liberty as strings, which you can't prove either, there is a radical simplification. We can't do much physics without time. It is a unification variable way beyond force unification. Instead of a fluff variable, it leads to conceptual compaction.

 

Let me give an example; time dilation. If we work under the assumption time is a thing, and we have the liberty to prove this eventually, like strings, time dilation reflects the rate at which time (potential) is processed. This is something even an elementary science student can understand. The existing alternative still creates problem for most college students. The affect is the popcorn is pushed into the cornel. Using this theory one can explain why quantum affects exists, why uncertainty, why the determinism of chaos. These are too advanced to explain when time is not a thing.

[modest]

It comes down to convention. If we postulated time was a thing and gave this the same creative liberty as strings, which you can't prove either, there is a radical simplification. We can't do much physics without time. It is a unification variable way beyond force unification. Instead of a fluff variable, it leads to conceptual compaction.

 

Let me give an example; time dilation. If we work under the assumption time is a thing, and we have the liberty to prove this eventually, like strings, time dilation reflects the rate at which time (potential) is processed. This is something even an elementary science student can understand. The existing alternative still creates problem for most college students. The affect is the popcorn is pushed into the cornel. Using this theory one can explain why quantum affects exists, why uncertainty, why the determinism of chaos. These are too advanced to explain when time is not a thing.

 

I absolutely agree HB,

 

I think it's important to ask people who say time isn't real what exactly they plan to do with that declaration. Without time you can't calculate velocity or acceleration - much less anything more complicated. I don't see the usefulness.

 

~modest

[Southtown]

I think maybe the point would be to requestion all that is founded upon such a subjective ideal.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Well, change takes place. But unless there is a conscious mind there to perceive it, then only now exists.

I do not mean to imply that consciousness causes change. But it takes a conscious mind to be aware of it.

We perceive consecutive states of existence and see change. We see motion and we see things change, like ice melting.

We call the 'distance' between two states 'time'.

We say, 'time causes change'.

But time was something we created to explain that distance between two Nows.

 

We project 'time' into existence as the causative agent for change.

But we have no proof that time is the cause of change. It could very well be an internal construct and to treat it as an actual existent might actually be a neurotic activity, universal though it may be.

 

But if time isn't the cause of change, what is?

[Southtown]

Profound. I'd like to hear Doctordick's opinion. His work is directly related.

[freeztar]

We say, 'time causes change'.

But time was something we created to explain that distance between two Nows.

Who is the "we" you are referring to?

 

Time is not synonymous with 'cause'. Time does not cause change, time describes/measures it.

[Little Bang]

Time is a function of electromagnetic energy and from that all things come into being.