wazzuuup Posted August 30, 2004 Author Report Posted August 30, 2004 In this forum, we've been discussing mostly time. I think time couldn't exist without energy (negative energy, positive energy). This would mean that once there are any quantum fluctuations, sounds, or perhaps humans walking down a street, time would gain a function. This is probably the same as saying that time passes with movement, but movement gains energy when accelerated so it seems better to just directly relate it to energy. My main question is whether there could be any way to calculate the 'speed of the proper time' relative to (... nothing........)? (Could it be related to the energy, the speed of light or anything else?) I just don't find it 'correct' to actually compare it to a coordinate time, finding a relative speed. I am not trying to say that there is a universal time, only that there should be a universal method to calculate the speed of time (assuming such a concept of 'speed of time' has a truth in it). But I think I learnt at school that energy can never be lost, since it is just converted into a different type of energy (so time can never stop?). If temperatures however dropped to -273 degrees Celcius, I think I read there would be no energy, entropy, etc. Are both claims correct? But I don't understand whether the continually falling entropy from the second law of thermodynamics allows the total energy to stay the same, and whether gravity is a type of energy (if it is, this could fit in where the energy of the gravitational pull makes time time run slower according to GR). However, last year I got into ninth grade and my teacher mentioned 'gravitational energy', but then in books Einstein refers to it as a 'field', while Newton said it was a 'force'. So is it or is it not a type of energy?
Freethinker Posted September 1, 2004 Report Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by: wazzuuupIn this forum, we've been discussing mostly time. I think time couldn't exist without energy (negative energy, positive energy). This would mean that once there are any quantum fluctuations, sounds, or perhaps humans walking down a street, time would gain a function.I wonder if time can be discussed scientifically at the Human level. If we need to stick to particle, atom level at best. It seems discussion of time in connection with humans is based on PRECEPTION of time, not PASSAGE of time. My main question is whether there could be any way to calculate the 'speed of the proper time' relative to (... nothing........)? (Could it be related to the energy, the speed of light or anything else?) I just don't find it 'correct' to actually compare it to a coordinate time, finding a relative speed. I am not trying to say that there is a universal time, only that there should be a universal method to calculate the speed of time (assuming such a concept of 'speed of time' has a truth in it). These seem to want to disassociate time from space. as in "a coordinate time, finding a relative speed". GR established a fixed relationship to all FOUR timespace co-ordinates. It does not treat X,Y,Z, Time as any different.But I think I learnt at school that energy can never be lost, since it is just converted into a different type of energy (so time can never stop?). If temperatures however dropped to -273 degrees Celcius, I think I read there would be no energy, entropy, etc. Are both claims correct?Perhaps more correctly "no change in" rather than "none". But I don't understand whether the continually falling entropy from the second law of thermodynamicsActually you have it backwards. the 2nd Law is based on INCREASE of entropy, not decrease/ falling. An INCREASE in Entropy is a DECREASE in ORDER.
wazzuuup Posted October 18, 2004 Author Report Posted October 18, 2004 I seriously doubt backwards time travel. Special relativity emphasizes on the 'space time'. So if time is discontinuous stated by quantum mechanics, we will never be able to get back to the same time and location of yesterday. Why not location? We rotate on Earth, while rotating around the Sun, moving around in our galaxy, in our expanding universe. So the place in which we went to the store yesterday, is thousands of kilomters away now and untracable since all the reference frames are moving at their own space time rate. I'm not saying that the space time in which we went to the store yesterday just disapeared, but has a different coordinate now. With location gone, and time being discontinuous, you can't just 'pull' the time back to go backwards. And since faster than speed of light travel is forbidden by e=mc^2, I guess nobody will ever be able to go backwards in their own proper time (or forwards in your own proper time and backwards in coordinate time).
Freethinker Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Originally posted by: wazzuuupI'm not saying that the space time in which we went to the store yesterday just disapeared, but has a different coordinate now. With location gone, and time being discontinuous, you can't just 'pull' the time back to go backwards.I have tried to address this before. That if we "travel thru time" what happens to Relative spacial co-ordinates? Perhaps as you suggest, the "store we went to yesterday" is someplace elese in the universe today. But is is also possible that based on Inflation, any specific spacial co-ordinate does not move, just the distance between it and another spacial co-ordinate. The question of whether we ahve moved further away from some other star or galaxy or whether the space in bewteen has just become larger. And if it is just inflationary space (in between), is that also correct locally? Are the atoms within my body also increasing in the distance between them? And since faster than speed of light travel is forbidden by e=mc^2,I believe the more correct statement is that it is impossible to accelerate to faster than the speed of light. NOT that it is impossible for something to go faster than the speed of light. There is the suggestion of Tachyon Particles. Particles that travel at faster than the speed of light. They can not slow down below the speed of light just as other particles can not speed up to past the speed of light.
wazzuuup Posted October 18, 2004 Author Report Posted October 18, 2004 It reminds me of blowing up a balloon. If you mark two points on the intial balloon and then blow it up, these points will still be on the same spot, but spread out more. Yet the spots would have enlarged as well, wouldn't they? I'm not sure if that's a valid analogy to compare coordinates with, but here again you come across the dilemma on how to coordinate the two marks on the blown up balloon. I also wanted to share my idas on my response to the question "what is time?". 1). It is the duration (of the notion) of any changes in space. 2). It is not universal, but relative to its measurement of the change in space. 3). The only universal time is relative to the rate of expansion of the universe. 4). It is different than the one Einstein derived in the sense that : dt=dx+dy+dz, whereby x,y,z are 'local' variables, whereas Einstein's formula is whereby x,y,z are the three spatial dimensions5). time is always positive6). Travelling at the speed of light implies there is no light in front of you, so one can't experience anything and therefore have no notion of the change in space, which implies dt=0. Just to put this in context, if someone states his age is 21, it means she or he has changed in space for 21 years. The change in space is also for a large part influenced by matter, which therefore changes space and time in acordance with Einstein's curvature of spacetime. If there's space, there can be time if a change occurs.If there's space, it can be without time if no change occurs. If there's no space, there can't be any time for no change occurs.
Recommended Posts