What is time?

[modest]

If the shutter speed is slower than the time (functionality) of the action, we will get motion blur. Time is still stopped in the photo, at a point of time (if we had a clock in the photo we can prove this) but what we get is an indeterminacy of position, which the brain will interpret as motion. It is apparent motion without the requirement of movement through time. Who can tell the photo below is motion even with time stopped?

 

Not true.

 

Shutter speed is the amount of time the shutter is open. It is exposure time. Blurring means that something was moving during the time the shutter was open. For example, a 1 meter object which is moving 1 meter per second photographed with a 1 second exposure time would end up as a 2 meter blur opaquest in the middle.

 

Time is still stopped in the photo, at a point of time (if we had a clock in the photo we can prove this)

 

In a dark room set your camera to a 10 second exposure. Use a clock that shows seconds.

 

~modest

[watcher]

Watcher,

Your post didn't come close to addressing my "bold" question... nor "What dilates?"

What is itthat "runs faster or slower" besides clocks?

 

LB and me have already suggested that it is wave, specifically the crest of the wave that moves faster and slower. the velocity of the crest depends on its wavelength which in turn depends on either the energy or the frequency.

 

it is noteworthy to say that crests of waves dont actually move, they just go up and down. but the series of crests in up and down sequence give as a perceptual impression that the crests are in motion.

 

Do you actually believe that there is a local 'time environment' for each locus or a different 'time line' for each traveling particle or wave... and that clocks simply monitor this very changeable medium, aether, or whatever entity, "time?"

I think you still don't get the ontological question no matter how I ask it.

 

let us imagine that you and me are lived (located) in two different frequency range. let's say i lived in a high frequency environment and you are in a low frequency surroundings.

naturally in my world everything moves faster relative to yours. so if motions is measured by time, i can say that we are in a different time environment.

 

for example, if i count my cycles i will count faster .... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

 

in your world, you would count your cycles much slower ... 1...... 2.......3.......4......... etc.

 

let' s say my frequency is 10 x faster than yours, so in your every 1 count, i have already counted 10. so if you call your 1 count 1 second, my count compares to you will be 0.10 second. mow if you will count second for second up to a 10 years, i would have only counted 1 year.

 

if our counts correspond to age, then i will say you aged faster than me. and i will make a conclusion that time is slow for me and fast to you.

 

now you may think that our counts are arbitrary, that we can say there is only one count for us. this is not true. particles have different cycles so they have different time frames.

 

Whatever particle or wave can travel at whatever speed and we can speak meaningfully about the velocity in either case. But this is stated in units of distance per units of time. The velocity of things can obviously change, and the comparison of velocities between things (or waves) can still be stated in distance units per units of time without the absurdity of claiming that either distances lengthen or shorten because of different velocities or that "time itself" slows down or speed up with these changes in velocity.

 

Are you following me?

Michael

 

yes. but i don't think you do follow me.

i see quantum waves as the generator of space, time and particles.

they are "prior" or more fundamental than space time and particles,

quantum waves are the real events we perceived as space time and things.

 

you probably think that waves are in space, imagine for a second that space is a result od the destructive interference of waves and point particles as the the constructive interference of waves. perhaps you can at least understand my point. time dilation and space contraction are results of different frequencies and wavelengths of the quantum waves interacting with one another . imo

[modest]

Your post didn't come close to addressing my "bold" question... nor "What dilates?"

What is itthat "runs faster or slower" besides clocks?

 

Any physical process.

 

~modest

[watcher]

for me it is specifically the cycles of any physical process.

[modest]

Something that happens only once can't be time dilated?

 

~modest

[watcher]

Something that happens only once can't be time dilated?

 

~modest

 

if you are asking me, my answer is no. for time dilation is noted when two events are compared. it doesn't matter whether it happens once or twice. i am not sure how can i say it in time. but if the clock you use to measure the passage of time for an event has the same cycles is there a time dilation?

 

i think it is more understandable if apply it to space. ... if the measuring rod expands with the same rate as the thing that is being measured , is there a discrepancy of measurement ? iow, can we say that the thing expand or contract?

 

we need two events of differing conditions to observed time dilation and space contraction. the question is what factors the events so as to subject them to different conditions?

[modest]

if you are asking me, my answer is no. for time dilation is noted when two events are compared. it doesn't matter whether it happens once or twice. i am not sure how can i say it in time. but if the clock you use to measure the passage of time for an event has the same cycles is there a time dilation?

 

i think it is more understandable if apply it to space. ... if the measuring rod expands with the same rate as the thing that is being measured , is there a discrepancy of measurement ? iow, can we say that the thing expand or contract?

 

we need two events of differing conditions to observed time dilation and space contraction. the question is what factors the events so as to subject them to different conditions?

 

I'm sorry—your post is illegible.

 

~modest

[watcher]

I'm sorry—your post is illegible.

 

~modest

 

its okay. if would just arouse your curiosity, i'll be more than happy. :eek_big:

[watcher]

One observation about time, that has always intrigued me is connected to photography. When we take a photo of some motion in time, we essentially stop time in the photo. The photo give us a snap shot of a point in time.

 

In the above photo, the background has motion blur. This would be easier to express with a wave function. The foreground cycler, where there is no variability in distance, due to no excess time is easier to express with a particle. The entire scene, as a unit shows particle-wave duality, based on the distribution of time, when t=0, with time being expressed as various degrees of position uncertainty. What is interesting, if we superimposed a double slit, onto the photo, some of the background can overlap both slits.

 

To know position implies there is no motion blur. But that stops the action so can't see momentum, such as in the biker. We can see momentum in the background, but we don't know position. The entire photo is a particle-wave.

 

What would happen if we had a motion camera. We will adjust the shutter speed, so there is some motion blur in each frame. Being a movie, there is another movement in time dependent on the frame rate. The higher the frame frequency the better the movie.

 

In the movie, we lose time (action) in the gaps between the frames. But with the shutter speed in each frame creating an uncertainty in distance, this fills in the gaps for apparent smooth motion in distance and time.

 

If we get rid of the motion blur, but maintained the frame frequency, it would look like quantum jumps, with subtle changes in position occurring in zero time. With simple time considerations one can simulate many of the effects observed in physics.

 

i think what you are describing is the discrete motion of particles.

particles do appear and disappear in space. in this notion, there are only two states of time. either t = 1, or t=0. in an instant of moment, the particle appear at freeze frame, and in another instant it disappear. iow, particles and waves do not appear simultaneously . time is measured by the change of one position then disappear only to reappear to the next position. this is also the frame rate you refer in the movie analogy. we can also say that the frame rate of our universe is c (lightspeed)

 

you can also imagine a particle as a neon light, that goes on and off. a collection of neon lights can turn on or off and by coordinated sequencing, all kinds of moving images can be produced out of it. but the fact is that no neon lights is actually moving. i think is it the same as the movie analogy. the on/off neon lights represent the undulating amplitudes of the waves.

[PerfectLiquid]

Sometimes it is challenging to find the precisely correct thread for a specific post. This is a spin-off from the other (relativity focused) "time" thread.

 

A thought experiment for "Ontology 101...What Is Time?":

 

If there were no clocks, what would "time" be?

What entity/medium/aether/whatever would "dilate" if there were no clocks "keeping time" differently?

 

Michael

 

Hi Michael,

 

Sticking to my understanding of time as a thermodynamic rate (order --> disorder), I would speculate that time is mediated by a background medium. While the notion of an aether is currently out of vogue, it may be useful to point back to the approach that James Clerk Maxwell took in the development of his famous electrodynamic equations. He assumed that an incompressible fluid filled space and that this was the medium that conveyed electromagnetic fields. Based on this view, he used two properties of free space (its permittivity and permeability - electrical and magnetic properties) to derive the speed of light. This strongly suggests (to me at least) that there is some medium present in free space that conveys energy through space. If true, then it is reasonable to suspect that something as pervasive as "time" might also be mediated by it. Please appreciate that this will be a minority view in the extreme, but if your interested in trying to grasp "time" from a substantive point of view, it may be worth a visit to the following link:

physicsworld.com

The article in that link reviews some careful work performed by experimenters at CERN who looked into the characteristics of a particle known as the neutral kaon. This particle seems to have very STRANGE properties...:)

 

Regards,

Al

[Michael Mooney]

Me:

"What is it that "runs faster or slower" besides clocks?"

Modest:

"Any physical process."

 

So, without any clocks, are you saying that the internal dynamics of all physical precesses slow down with increased velocity? (Setting aside for the moment that any such an increase requires acceleration.)

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Watcher:

let us imagine that you and me are lived (located) in two different frequency range. let's say i lived in a high frequency environment and you are in a low frequency surroundings.

naturally in my world everything moves faster relative to yours. so if motions is measured by time, i can say that we are in a different time environment.

 

I'm fine with thought experiments as a tool of science as long as we both understand the terminology being used. And it really helps if the scene is somewhere in the actual cosmos and within the body of knowledge known as "the laws of physics."

 

(For instance, "theories" which require abandonment of all known laws of physics, as in "singularity" theory or "string/M-theory", are no different in my mind than pure fantasy... even if famous physicist/mathematicians come up with them!)

 

With that in mind, what do you mean by living "in two different frequency ranges?"

We both live on Earth in the real world, so are you making the argument that if one of us lived in a mysterious "other dimension" then "time" would pass differently for each of us.

 

I'm not going there with you.:)

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Hi Michael,

 

Sticking to my understanding of time as a thermodynamic rate (order --> disorder), I would speculate that time is mediated by a background medium. While the notion of an aether is currently out of vogue, it may be useful to point back to the approach that James Clerk Maxwell took in the development of his famous electrodynamic equations. He assumed that an incompressible fluid filled space and that this was the medium that conveyed electromagnetic fields. Based on this view, he used two properties of free space (its permittivity and permeability - electrical and magnetic properties) to derive the speed of light. This strongly suggests (to me at least) that there is some medium present in free space that conveys energy through space. If true, then it is reasonable to suspect that something as pervasive as "time" might also be mediated by it. Please appreciate that this will be a minority view in the extreme, but if your interested in trying to grasp "time" from a substantive point of view, it may be worth a visit to the following link:

physicsworld.com

The article in that link reviews some careful work performed by experimenters at CERN who looked into the characteristics of a particle known as the neutral kaon. This particle seems to have very STRANGE properties...:)

 

Regards,

Al

Hi Al,

Various kinds of "aether" have been around for a long "time" among theorists who's mind-set requires a "medium" for the conveyance of such forces as gravity and electromagnetism. I personally don't see any difference between the theory of malleable "spacetime" and the older theories that "the aether" throughout space is a malleable as well as conductive/permeable medium.

 

But I must ask if you have read my most concise presentation on the ontology of time in this thread. (Post 584, p. 59 http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/3650-what-is-time-59.html

 

If you would please critique that post, we could take it from there and I would not have to repeat what I have said so many times here already.

Thanks.

Michael

PS... Since everything is in motion, including thermodynamic energy, I readily agree that a good definition of time is the measure of the duration of any such motion-event. But the metaphorical stopwatch which takes that measure (in whatever units of time) does not create or monitor some "aether" "time" by the act of measurement. Do you agree?

[watcher]

With that in mind, what do you mean by living "in two different frequency ranges?"

We both live on Earth in the real world, so are you making the argument that if one of us lived in a mysterious "other dimension" then "time" would pass differently for each of us.

I'm not going there with you.:)

Michael

 

let's use two atomic clock to make my point somewhat "down to earth".

atomic clock are basically frequency counters. refer below for the an atomic clock definition.

 

when two atomic clocks are on the same exact condition, it will register the same time. but when one clock is subjected to say acceleration or gravitational force, when compared , they will have a discrepancy of recorded time, so to the question, what dilates, the answer is the reading of the clock. but what did the reading of the clock represent?

 

since what is recorded in an atomic clock is the frequency of an atom (e.g. cessium), then there is no other explanation as to why the other clock recorded a slower time because it means that the atomic clock register less number of frequency which in turn could only possibly mean that the frequency of the atoms in the atomic clock slow down.

 

PS.

 

dictionary definition of atomic clock - an atomic clock is an extremely precise timekeeping device regulated in correspondence with a characteristic invariant frequency of an atomic or molecular system.

 

A device that uses an internal resonance frequency of atoms (or molecules) to measure the passage of time. The terms atomic clock and atomic frequency standard are often used interchangeably. A frequency standard generates pulses at regular intervals. It can be made into a clock by the addition of an electronic counter, which records the number of pulses. See also Digital counter.

 

Most methods of timekeeping rely on counting some periodic event, such as the rotation of the Earth, the motion of a pendulum in a grandfather clock, or the vibrations of a quartz crystal in a watch. An atomic clock relies on counting periodic events determined by the difference of two different energy states of an atom

[watcher]

Time is the *concept/measure* of event duration.

This can be any "event" from a designated period of cesium's radioactive decay (as calibrated in atomic clocks) to Earth's "great precession" cycle of around 26,000 years.

Most familiar "timed events" of course are Earth's period of orbit and rotation, and fractions thereof, down to seconds and very small fractions of a second.

 

time defined as a measure of duration is a circular definition.

 

However, none of these periods of "time" are ontologically real as entities or a malleable medium of any kind. They are, as you said, merely concepts or measurements of designated events, beginning and ending with the observer's 'clicks of the stopwatch.'

 

events are real, what is being measured as time is therefore real.

 

So, in truth, *now,* the present *is* always present, not sliced into units of time in the real world/cosmos.

it does not follow. "now" is also a concept. now has no meaning without the concept of "not now" or "later".

 

The future is not yet real and present and the past is not still real and present, and there is no "time" between future and past. Time is the convention of event duration from one designated now to another.

 

the observer can sense time which we call a one direction arrow of time. have it occurred to you that the observer's brain is also a time keeper and measures duration events.

 

So, "spans of time", as above are as real as we make them. There is no cosmic counter clicking at every complete earth rotation, orbit, etc. Yet we can "be on time" to work by common consensus on the *convention, time,* and we can plug in "time" as a component of velocity and calculate and execute a round trip to the moon or speak in terms of "light minutes or years" as measures of distance.

 

nonsense, if there is no cosmic counter for all particles, this universe will be in chaos. it needs time for its orderly interaction.

 

It is also conventional to call "time" the fourth dimension added to the obvious spacial three which describe volume. Then we can avoid having two airplanes at the same coordinates in air-space at the same time. A very useful convention.

But "it" doesn't expand and contract as an actual entity of any kind, i.e., not "real" in that sense, or in the sense that each location has its own "time environment." "It" is always, perpetually *NOW everywhere.* (Same "it" as in "It is raining..." no agent "it" making rain happen.)

 

what does not expands is concepts and ideas like now. how could it be? its just in your head. what is being measured by time does.

[Michael Mooney]

time defined as a measure of duration is a circular definition.

 

events are real, what is being measured as time is therefore real.

 

it does not follow. "now" is also a concept. now has no meaning without the concept of "not now" or "later".

 

the observer can sense time which we call a one direction arrow of time. have it occurred to you that the observer's brain is also a time keeper and measures duration events.

 

nonsense, if there is no cosmic counter for all particles, this universe will be in chaos. it needs time for its orderly interaction.

 

what does not expands is concepts and ideas like now. how could it be? its just in your head. what is being measured by time does.

 

I, like modest replying to another of your posts, find this post incomprehensible.

As a psychologist I must wonder if you are struggling with English as a second language or... (insults deleted.)

 

I'm not interested in further conversation with you, in any case.

(That was a period.)

 

Good luck on your scientific journey. You seem to live in a different world of experience, especially in science, than I do.

 

I don't see any hope of real communication between us after all these months.

 

Michael

[watcher]

I, like modest replying to another of your posts, find this post incomprehensible.

As a psychologist I must wonder if you are struggling with English as a second language or... (insults deleted.)

 

i avoid using lengthy explanation but wanted to be always brief. i seldom use profound english words. but i do admit that sometimes my posts are highly connotative, being an electrical engineer familiar with frequencies, it is possible that you can't comprehend concept like resonance, phase vectors, etc, i t is possible that your miscomprehension of my post is that your not familiar with say basic concepts in QM or wave mechanics, and not my english deficiency.

 

as a psychologists, you should also know that disagreements in ideas, blinds the person to understand one what is saying. and this seem to be your case, i have noticed how you have ignored all the similarity and my agreements with you because you seemed to have arrived at a different conclusion, and no one;s answer is good enough for you unless the answer is the one like yours.

 

I'm not interested in further conversation with you, in any case.

(That was a period.)

in public forums, this is called cop out.

 

I don't see any hope of real communication between us after all these months. Michael

 

perhaps. but it is self delusional to think that the breakdown of communication is a one sided affair.

 

i find it impossible that after three attempts to explain that time dilation is link to natural frequencies and still don't understand it is a failure to communicate on my part.

 

Good luck on your scientific journey. You seem to live in a different world of experience, especially in science, than I do.

a scientific journey is the study of external objects' behavior.

the journey to the world of experience is the objective study of subjectivity. imo, you are confusing the two.

 

in meditative states, by stilling the mind, there is a feeling of timeless presence we call now, in this state all concepts about time is gone. is this your experience?

 

also please clarify if you meant

 

1. time is an illusion and don't exist and therefore it has no ontoloty

 

2 or time exists but its ontology in NOW