A question of time and relativity

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

A question of time and relativity

Postby JohnD on July 31st, 2013, 3:27 am 

Einstein's Theory of Relativity states that time is relative to the observer.
Ergo time in essence must have something or someone to be relative to and then it can be counted relative to that being or thing.
If a spaceship is travelling through space what time is it relative to?
A question that should be asked to my thinking according to the theory is 'is the spaceship being observed by a person or thing?' if not then there really is no basis for time.
It is also ludicrous to assume it relative to earth time if it's not travelling in relation to earth time.
The journey from earth to mars may well take 6 earth months but is it relative time wise to say the journey takes 6 months when the astronaut resides on Mars? Never mind "time travel" its immaterial. And what if the astronaut was to travel the other way would we then say it is a journey of 2 years from earth or 9 months from Mars?
Though it may sound like it this isn't about universal time rather the concept of time itself and that it is allowed to have its own dimension.
This is what keeps me pondering the reality of time. It has no basis, no foundation yet we assume that rather than time being relative, everything else is relative to time. Yet time is still only a measure of change that we had assumed to help us calculate our own age relative to all that surrounds us. And that only came to being when we started counting the seasons.
We have become a species of time counters. We have even given ourselves a time limit for our existence to the extent that we dread what would happen if we managed to live longer. (It wasn't that long ago that I went in search of a new position and was asked if at my age I would be able to cope.)
The way I look at it change happens and has been happening from before the beginning of the universe and always will. Time however is an indeterminate, it's not an object, not even an accurate measure, has no intrinsic value, it cannot be divided nor multiplied and if you tried to grasp it your fist would be empty.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby owleye on July 31st, 2013, 9:38 am 

JohnD wrote:Einstein's Theory of Relativity states that time is relative to the observer.
Ergo time in essence must have something or someone to be relative to and then it can be counted relative to that being or thing.
If a spaceship is travelling through space what time is it relative to?
A question that should be asked to my thinking according to the theory is 'is the spaceship being observed by a person or thing?' if not then there really is no basis for time.
It is also ludicrous to assume it relative to earth time if it's not travelling in relation to earth time.
The journey from earth to mars may well take 6 earth months but is it relative time wise to say the journey takes 6 months when the astronaut resides on Mars? Never mind "time travel" its immaterial. And what if the astronaut was to travel the other way would we then say it is a journey of 2 years from earth or 9 months from Mars?
Though it may sound like it this isn't about universal time rather the concept of time itself and that it is allowed to have its own dimension.
This is what keeps me pondering the reality of time. It has no basis, no foundation yet we assume that rather than time being relative, everything else is relative to time. Yet time is still only a measure of change that we had assumed to help us calculate our own age relative to all that surrounds us. And that only came to being when we started counting the seasons.
We have become a species of time counters. We have even given ourselves a time limit for our existence to the extent that we dread what would happen if we managed to live longer. (It wasn't that long ago that I went in search of a new position and was asked if at my age I would be able to cope.)
The way I look at it change happens and has been happening from before the beginning of the universe and always will. Time however is an indeterminate, it's not an object, not even an accurate measure, has no intrinsic value, it cannot be divided nor multiplied and if you tried to grasp it your fist would be empty.


You have to realize that when Einstein refers to (proper) time, he means what a local (accurate) clock, perhaps on the wrist of an observer, reads. What other way can time be conceived? Would it remain quantifiable? Is there something else which should be used to measure time? Time is a pretty basic concept. What better way to understand it that finding a way to measure it. If clocks don't work, what would?

James
owleye
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Obvious Leo on July 31st, 2013, 5:27 pm 

My own ontology of time is of the KISS variety. Time is a sequence of moments which we can measure with a clock. We all have our own sequence of moments thus we all have our own time as measured by our own clock. Nobody else's time has any meaning on your clock.

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby JohnD on July 31st, 2013, 8:38 pm 

Hi James
All I can say is good questions. I have no direct answers to your questions except why should we conceive time at all? Is time quantifiable at present - how can we quantify time when time has no substance? The only reason we measure time is to note the passing of events i.e. change, why not quantify change instead?
Hi Leo
What are moments?
Seems that every instance we mention time it gets justified by utilising the measurement of time. A very frustrating circular argument.
"Though it may sound like it this isn't about universal time rather the concept of time itself and that it is allowed to have its own dimension."
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby CanadysPeak on July 31st, 2013, 9:13 pm 

JohnD wrote:Hi James
All I can say is good questions. I have no direct answers to your questions except why should we conceive time at all? Is time quantifiable at present - how can we quantify time when time has no substance? The only reason we measure time is to note the passing of events i.e. change, why not quantify change instead?
Hi Leo
What are moments?
Seems that every instance we mention time it gets justified by utilising the measurement of time. A very frustrating circular argument.
"Though it may sound like it this isn't about universal time rather the concept of time itself and that it is allowed to have its own dimension."

You are perhaps right in saying that time is of essence rather than substance. That makes it no less real than a distance for example. We cannot, after all, pop down to the corner shop for a foot of width; width is only width in the measurement of the essence.

Nonetheless, we are sentient beings, and we can conceive of that which we cannot hold in our hand, cannot store in a vault, and cannot control by our puny powers. Time is. We can think of it. We can measure it in our limited way - a clock (though we are very clever and have devised many, many types of clocks) - but we can neither span it nor stop it. We are always constrained to just watch time go past us. We do make some nice speculation about what it is, but it is always like a shimmering rainbow that we observe but cannot grab hold of.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Obvious Leo on July 31st, 2013, 9:15 pm 

JohnD wrote:why not quantify change instead?


In the KISS version this is just a semantic indulgence because time and change are the same thing. Without time change cannot occur and without change time has no meaning.

Regards Leo

P.S. Nicely put, Canady.
Obvious Leo
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Dave_Oblad on July 31st, 2013, 10:19 pm 

Hi JohnD,

As I have said many times, Clocks do "NOT" measure Time. They measure Energy Conversion. If you build a clock that has a constant state of energy conversion, then you can use it as a measure of Real Time.. as long as you are not moving all over the place and at high rates of speed.

I pointed this out on one of Owleye's threads and he got a bit miffed, thinking I was inventing something new.. when I said: "Clocks do not measure Time".

This caused a split to another thread where Jorrie resolved it in a rather clever example.

Imagine a plate with one clock in the center and another clock on the rim. Lay it on a table. Now raise it upwards and think of the plate as moving upwards through time (arrow of time is up). See.. both clocks keep pace with each other. Now do it again, but this time spin the plate. Both clocks are moving upwards at the same rate.. but the clock in the middle is only going upwards while the clock on the rim is doing both.. Going upwards at the same rate as the one in the center but also moving very fast in a circle around the center clock, as the plate spins.

When you get to the ceiling, the clock in the center reads like it did every test before.. but the moving clock on the rim reads less lapsed time. Like it was running slower.. which it was. So motion causes clocks to run slower as an aspect of Energy Conversion and not of Time. This holds true for ALL clocks, regardless of their Type, including biological clocks. So the outside clock aged slower then the center clock, even though both are moving upwards through time at the same rate.

So it is NOT true that the faster you go through Space.. the slower you go through Time. We all progress through Time at the same rate, but with clocks "Skewed" due to differences in Spatial motion. So Relativity is about Motion and the effects of motion on our Clocks, and says nothing really about Time itself. More specifically.. Relativity is about multiple bodies moving at different speeds and having clocks ticking at different rates from each other (due only to their motion) and mathematically figuring out how to compare them in a meaningful way. (ignoring Gravity for the moment)

To understand Time, you must stop thinking about Clocks. Does that help?

Here is a tricky question: Suppose I had a magic button and pushing it caused that person to jump one day ahead in True Time. Say Sally had that button and was having lunch with me and during lunch she pushed the button and jumped ahead to lunch-time tomorrow. From my point of view.. she vanished.. a gap was created between us measuring one day. Now she has a one day head start on me.. can I ever catch up with her without my own magic button? Think about it.

While I am killing time waiting for a whole day to pass, she is also moving through time at the same rate as I am. Can I ever catch her? Think about that for a moment.

Ok.. Yes.. I will catch her next day at Noon. The version of her that is already a day ahead remembers this fact from her previous day to her present place in time. So what does that tell us?

I'll answer that for you. There is no such thing as "NOW". That Reality is a continuous series of "NOWS". all hooked together. There is no preferred "NOW" beyond what your conscious mind has evolved to call as "NOW".

You will agree we have continuity of Matter from our Toes to our Heads, Chest to Back and left Arm to right Arm. That is 3 dimensions. But we have one more form of Matter continuity, and that is from Past to Future as a 4th Dimension. If we didn't.. I would never be able to catch up with Sally when she skipped ahead one day. So I hear one ask.. why can't we see ourselves on this Dimension. Ok.. good question.

Let's make it more simple.. Imagine a Flat-Lander fellow bouncing a Circle. He has tallness and he has width but it seems like he has no Depth.. so I give him Depth but this Depth is the 3rd Dimension or what he would call Time because it has changes of events, like his bouncing his circle. His eyes (unfortunately) can only look Up and Down, or by rotating his head, Left to Right. His eyes have no Depth perception along his axis of Time. He is a slice of matter. But add all the slices together, we see him as he really is.. with continuity of Mass through his Time (or the 3D Dimension in his case).

We are faced with the same limitation, in that we can't see along the axis of Time. We are a Three Dimensional slice with continuity along the Time Axis. Or put another way.. I am 6 foot tall, so it seems reasonable to say I could hold my entire being inside a 6 foot diameter ball. That would be false. The ball would have to be large enough to hold all of me.. from birth to death. That's a lot bigger than a lousy 6 feet.

The image below demonstrates this as a 3D image of our 2D friend with Depth as Time.

Man3D.jpg
2D Flatlander bouncing a Circle thru Time

So seeing this, does it make any sense to say we are moving through time? NO! We exist as a Matter-Continuum through Time. We don't even get to say we have a Speed or Rate through Time. We may intersect and interact with each other, along the Temporal Axis. And at any point, you can point at a place where you were/are/was and that version of you.. will call it "NOW" every single time.

Any questions?

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
Last edited by Dave_Oblad on July 31st, 2013, 11:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby JohnD on July 31st, 2013, 10:38 pm 

Canady can you please clarify for me where I have said that time is essence? I can't recall ever doing so!
To say that time has essence would be to say time has substance and I say the opposite.
From Wikipedia "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity."
As Leo would say even a spider has that.
"Time is" what kind of scientific argument is that! More like a statement of absurdity. I should think that if I tried hard enough I could imagine a fairy in the garden and measure that too.
Leo if time and change are the same then please enlighten me as to what does time measure?
Your closing statement has the most meaning - time has no meaning.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby JohnD on July 31st, 2013, 10:45 pm 

Hi Dave
Please take note I never mentioned clocks.
I'll get to the rest another time. I actually need to do some work now! :)
I'm back.
I don't agree we don't have a 4th dimension of time, we have change as a constant wether the person is standing still as a statue or moving about like a mad man. This is what time is used to measure - change, wether we use clocks is irrelevant. It is but an instrument of our making to enable us to learn about our surroundings. We utilise it to measure whatever aspect of change we wish to view size, velocity or frequency. If we were to say that time is change or even a different dimension then we would have to be more precise wether it is size, velocity or frequency of change. A dimension surely can't be more than one.
Last edited by JohnD on July 31st, 2013, 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Obvious Leo on July 31st, 2013, 10:47 pm 

Dave_Oblad wrote:Any questions?


Yes mate. Who do you get your weed from?

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Dave_Oblad on July 31st, 2013, 11:01 pm 

Hi Leo..

There are none so blind as those that will not see ;^P

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Obvious Leo on July 31st, 2013, 11:11 pm 

JohnD wrote:Leo if time and change are the same then please enlighten me as to what does time measure?


Time measures rate of change. Change occurs more slowly in a hyperbolic relationship according to the strength of the gravitational field. Clocks slow down accordingly. Which is cause and which is effect is meaningless because gravity and time (and naturally change) are woven into a continuum. IMHO. I caution you that this opinion is my own alone and does not reflect mainstream thinking. You should try and pick your way through Dave's confusing melange of bollocks to get the official view but bear in mind that he is offering his own translation.

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby JohnD on July 31st, 2013, 11:17 pm 

Nice try Leo but your argument falls short.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby CanadysPeak on August 1st, 2013, 7:45 pm 

JohnD wrote:Canady can you please clarify for me where I have said that time is essence? I can't recall ever doing so!
To say that time has essence would be to say time has substance and I say the opposite.
From Wikipedia "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity."
As Leo would say even a spider has that.
"Time is" what kind of scientific argument is that! More like a statement of absurdity. I should think that if I tried hard enough I could imagine a fairy in the garden and measure that too.
Leo if time and change are the same then please enlighten me as to what does time measure?
Your closing statement has the most meaning - time has no meaning.


I was not specific enough. I should have specified nominal essence as opposed to real essence.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby BurtJordaan on August 2nd, 2013, 2:47 am 

Dave_Oblad wrote:This caused a split to another thread where Jorrie resolved it in a rather clever example.

Imagine a plate with one clock in the center and another clock on the rim. Lay it on a table. Now raise it upwards and think of the plate as moving upwards through time (arrow of time is up). See.. both clocks keep pace with each other. Now do it again, but this time spin the plate. Both clocks are moving upwards at the same rate.. but the clock in the middle is only going upwards while the clock on the rim is doing both.. Going upwards at the same rate as the one in the center but also moving very fast in a circle around the center clock, as the plate spins.


Dave, the only problem with it is that who is to say that the axis that we draw normal to the plate means time? Isn't it just a graphical representation of a part of spacetime? We take every second that the clock ticks off, multiply it by the speed of light to get a distance, which we then plot on the vertical axis. We normally label that axis "coordinate time", but it also represents the "proper time" of the central clock.

The center sits at the origin of an inertial frame, while the rim of the rotating plate is clearly not in an inertial frame, since it suffers centrifugal forces and it is in motion relative to the center's inertial frame. As you correctly stated, a rim clock's elapsed time measurements will be less than what the central clock measures, due to the different paths through spacetime.

We could have decided to take a rim clock as the reference and plot its progress in time along the vertical axis. It now represents the coordinate time and also the proper time for the rim clock. To find the relative time intervals, we now have to consider the rim clock to sit spatially static in a gravitational field (curved spacetime) while the center clock is free falling, or sitting in flat spacetime. Each clock still measures its proper time, but now there is a different notion of what coordinate time means.

So, it is maybe philosophically OK to equate a coordinate time with "time" and proper time with what clocks measure, but scientifically, it may land you in troubled waters. Time is still what clocks measure and coordinate time is just a human convenience. Scientifically, we use both and it helps us to make predictions that is borne out by observations, but it does not tell us "what is time". IMO, this is for the philosophers to debate.

--
Regards
Jorrie
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Obvious Leo on August 2nd, 2013, 3:50 am 

BurtJordaan wrote:Dave, the only problem with it is that who is to say that the axis that we draw normal to the plate means time? Isn't it just a graphical representation of a part of spacetime? We take every second that the clock ticks off, multiply it by the speed of light to get a distance, which we then plot on the vertical axis. We normally label that axis "coordinate time", but it also represents the "proper time" of the central clock.


This what I call the "spatialisation of time", an ugly phrase but I can think of none better. In my view this is the metaphysical worm in the relativity apple and a legitimate subject of philosophical debate.

Is the spatialisation of time metaphysically kosher?

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 2nd, 2013, 5:01 am 

Hi Jorrie,

I hope you actually followed my major contribution above. If so, you understand I don't think about movement through Time or rates through Time or Clocks. In fact I only see separation between two non-simultaneous Temporal events as Spatial Distance. And when I look at our Real Universe.. I see nothing moving at all. Like the image I posted in my contribution. As a 3D witness looking at this world of the Flatlander.. there is no motion. It's a frozen landscape.

I see our world the same way, no motion, through mental 4D Eyes of course. I'm trying to adjust now for 5D eyes to incorporate Entanglement in its natural place. Which requires 2 Dimensions of Time, where Time is still nothing but Spatial Distance. Time is no longer a single dimensional line.. but rather a 2D plane. It's Einteins 4D Block Universe but with at least one more Dimension so that the evolution of events require no motion.

IMHO.. Time doesn't truly exist, except within the myopic confines of our limited perceptions. And not an easy concept to convey, especially against so much "Common Sense"..lol.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby BurtJordaan on August 2nd, 2013, 5:38 am 

Dave_Oblad wrote:I hope you actually followed my major contribution above. If so, you understand I don't think about movement through Time or rates through Time or Clocks. In fact I only see separation between two non-simultaneous Temporal events as Spatial Distance.



Yes Dave, I followed your post and I almost agreed with what you wrote, except for when the "magic" entered... ;)

From my point of view.. she vanished.. a gap was created between us measuring one day. Now she has a one day head start on me.. can I ever catch up with her without my own magic button?

Since this sort of magic is unphysical, we may just as well say that "time as spatial distance" is unphysical. I think this is more or less what you said in the end, but there are a few issues with your view. For one thing, only spatially collocated events can be simultaneous in all inertial frames (the only brand of "absolute simultaneity"). But, as long as you preserve the principles of relativity, you can surely speculate about different ways of thinking about time...
--
Regards
Jorrie
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 2nd, 2013, 3:08 pm 

Hi Jorrie,

Yes.. instead of calling it a "magic button", I should have called it a "Temporal Relocation Transmutation Device"..lol. If you look at my Flatlander Image.. the progression away from the camera is forward in time.. if he had such a device, then you would see a physical gap between where he pushed the buttion and where his Geometry picked up again from where he left off.

Since everything is Pure Math, then nothing is really physical.. only Sequencial/Causal math/logic on at least 5 sequencial Axis. All events are simultanous in this Reality.. because Time doesn't Exist. Time is an invention to explain the world as we experience it. It's an Illusion, but one we have to live with. I'm simply exploring what's beyond the Illusion. And sometimes.. trying to let others get a glimpse of what I see.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Obvious Leo on August 2nd, 2013, 4:08 pm 

Dave_Oblad wrote: I'm trying to adjust now for 5D eyes to incorporate Entanglement in its natural place.


Quantum enalntemgent vanishes at the stroke of a pen when you try it with fewer dimensions rather than more, as does all the other quantum weirdness. If you insist on trying it the hard way I wish you joy of your labours. Occam and I watch on with fascination.

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby JohnD on August 2nd, 2013, 6:05 pm 

Hi Dave.
I'm happy to see there has been a revelation here that time doesn't in fact exist however I question when in light of this you then say that you want to extend to 5 dimensions two of which would be time related. It is contradictory and begs an explanation.
Why also do we have to live with something we don't believe in?
True we use the measurement of time and this is OK and possibly necessary for us to time not only our day but other events but lets not get carried away and continue to call it a dimension or extend it to 2 dimensions let alone keep considering everything relative to time. These are not necessary and ultimately confusing.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby owleye on August 2nd, 2013, 7:03 pm 

Dave... Just a quick remark in passing. And I suppose Leo and JohnD might be interested in this as well. One of the outcomes of GR is that space-time is physical. It can say this because of two of its features. One matter/energy causes space-time to curve and two, space-time influences the motions of bodies that pass through space-time. I personally find it remarkable that in the face of that, one could so readily deny its existence. Then again, one might be appealing to some higher form of existence in which space-time has no meaning. Plato, I suppose, would be proud. He didn't have much faith in the physical. But I have the feeling that Plato would appreciate Einstein's theory, and would probably take a fancy to quantum theory as well. Most of all, though, I think he would favor Paul Dirac, the physicist that incorporated relativity theory into quantum mechanics. His formulation was so beautiful, that he just knew it had to be true.

Mathematics can have this feature, you know. Elegance. It's not the evidence that matters, it seems, it's the beauty of the mathematical formulation.

James
owleye
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Obvious Leo on August 2nd, 2013, 7:22 pm 

owleye wrote:Mathematics can have this feature, you know. Elegance. It's not the evidence that matters, it seems, it's the beauty of the mathematical formulation.


A pithy summary of my major objections.

Quite so, James. Plato is my primary muse. He would welcome Einstein into the Cave and carefully explain what he was on about. He describes a hologram.

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
 


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 2nd, 2013, 10:53 pm 

Hi Everyone,

Before we get into the deeper stuff, it's been questioned on how I define Time. I've done this many times on other threads.. so I will try to keep this brief. Below is a portion of the value Pi in Decimal Notation:

3.1415926535897932384626433832795...

It is the product of an equation and represents the ratio of circumference vs. diameter of a circle.

But I want to look at the structure of the number itself. I note it has a beginning (3) followed by a sequence of digits that are completely deterministic in nature. If I call each digit an Event then we see that the sequence of (15) and the sequence (27) are separated by (23) single Events. So how much Time separates (15) and (27)? (Huh?) You ask how does a number sequence relate to the concept of Time? We have all the ingredients we need for Time. We have sequence, events and durations. In the case of my question.. the duration between (15) and (27) is (23) events.

Pi is a Micro Universe with 1 Dimension of Time. It has no Spatial Dimensions. It has no Substance. It does have a Beginning with Sequence, Events and Durations. And possibly no Ending. It takes up no (so-called) Real Space. It is Eternal, Deterministic and even a GOD can't change it.

I can just as easily quit calling this a Model for Time and call this a 1 Dimensional Spatial Universe. I simply switch terms to those applied for Distance, Length, Separation etc. It still has no Physical attributes, takes up no (so-called) Real Space and just sits there with no motion built into it. If you can't see that, then you aren't looking at the structure of it.. you are fixated on the numbers themselves and asking what do they mean. The numbers are just markers. The distance between (15) and (27) is 23 Units. Units of what? Well.. Units of itself! It is completely self referential.

From this above, can you see how a Universe can be both Eternal and still have a Beginning? Pi is Eternal (always existed-not created) and Pi has an Internal Beginning. It's that simple.

All of our personal Units, be them Time or Distance, are self referential. They only have meaning within the framework of our own Universe. So let's chuck out Time for a bit and advance to a 3D Reality made only of Space measured using Distance of Internal Units. We can add (for now) Matter and Energy and anything else you want that's "Real". For a very long period, we thought our 3D Reality was the final word and that this 3D reality Evolved with Changes. We called this observation of the Evolution of Changes as "Time".

Einstein changed all that. In working on Special Relativity (SR), he found he could swap Terms of Distance with Time and Time with Distance. You can rotate frames of reference and everything made sense and matched real world tests. His biggest break-through was (IMHO) that Time is actually just Distance, but needed another Dimension and thus was born 4D Space. Looking at this Model Einstein realized what came to be known as the Block Universe. The 4Th Axis of Distance we call the Temporal Axis. So instead of a Dynamic changing Model (as before), it became a perfectly Deterministic Causal Static Model where nothing actually moves but is simply Geometrically all connected together. Time, as an evolution of events, became an Extinct concept.

Einstein finished his work by adding Gravity to the Model (and fields etc) and published it as General Relativity (GR). Einstein's 4D Model was perfect and connected everything together, without "Time" as we perceive it. Utterly Mathematically Deterministic. Talk about Hog Heaven..lol.

Then along came Quantum Mechanics and upset his apple cart with Randomness as a central component. "God doesn't play Dice with the Universe!" he more or less said. But he never lived long enough to see, or help with, QM being integrated with GR. In QM information can travel faster than light between two distant points.. and that seemed impossible.. "Spooky action at a Distance" he called it. Many times Science has measured this speed, and in each case it appears to be instantaneous, within the limits of the testing apparatus. These folks confirmed the case of 7 x Speed of Light for a test duration of 12 hours: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614

Anyway, this "Spooky Action" is called Entanglement. Science is baffled with it. It implies that, to be true (which it is), information must be able to travel backwards through Time. This converts our beautiful 4D Static Block Model back into an Evolving 4D Dynamic Model. But wait! If Einstein got rid of that pesky "Time" once by adding one Spatial Dimension. Why not do it again? If we raise the Ante to 5 Dimensions, then we can regain our Static (Timeless) Block Model but in 5 Spatial Dimensions on this go around. Then Entanglement becomes understandable.. but the Universe gets even weirder, from our limited perceptions of what is Real anyway.

We basically barely touched on Relativity (in it's simplest form) but now I think we should focus on "Spatial Time".. as it applies to QM, specifically Entanglement. For a deeper education on Relativity, Owleye is digging into that subject on his "Newton's Rotating Bucket and Relativity" thread.
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=24842

Ok.. getting tired.. will pick this up later. Good night all.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby JohnD on August 3rd, 2013, 12:55 am 

Hi James
So far from my reading and rereading GR time is used as a coordinate to space hence spacetime.
The reference of time to gravity is a coincidence that is understandable. To me it is logical to think that if a measurement of time is taken at different levels above the earth's core there will be a difference in measurement as the rotation is different. Nothing in GR suggests to me the existence of time as a separate entity.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 678
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby BurtJordaan on August 3rd, 2013, 1:49 am 

Dave_Oblad wrote:In QM information can travel faster than light between two distant points.. and that seemed impossible.. "Spooky action at a Distance" he called it. Many times Science has measured this speed, and in each case it appears to be instantaneous, within the limits of the testing apparatus. These folks confirmed the case of 7 x Speed of Light for a test duration of 12 hours: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614


I think everyone must just take note that what Dave means by "information" may not be what scientists mean by it. Messages/cause and effect actions do not go faster than c, or has ever been demonstrated to. Entanglement carries 'random information', not useful information. Someone 'here' observes say the spin of one of the pair of entangled particles and someone 'there' the spin of the other member of the pair. The spins are opposite, but neither observer knows which spin he/she would find in advance, because it is random. This does not convey information in the normal sense of the word.

--
Regards
Jorrie
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 3rd, 2013, 5:07 am 

Hi all,

Jorrie wrote:Messages/cause and effect actions do not go faster than c, or has ever been demonstrated to.

So the article I posted never happened? It's whole purpose was to prove, once and for all, that Entanglement is FASTER than Light. They closed all the loopholes. Live with it! Done deal.. move on!

As far as sending messages: Split a laser beam into two Entangled beams. Pass one through a small aperture that spreads it out. The smaller the aperture, the wider the beam spreads. Like magic, the twin beam will react as if there was a "Virtual Slit" in space, equal distant from the crystal splitter (BBO) and the photon distribution (fan out) of the clone beam will perfectly match the forced side. Now regulate the real aperture with a message (Morse code?) and watch the photon meters at the receiver end carry the same message.

Next.. put a Template (after the real aperture) with a text message using punched holes. The photon detectors at the cloned end will capture the exact message (ghosting) due to probability distribution being identical between the beams. All using Entanglement and all at instantaneous speeds.

That party line is getting real old Jorrie. Now I have that off my chest.. it isn't even crucial to my next part. Other than in every attempt to measure the speed of information transfer "Via Entanglement", it has always, always, always.. beat the speed of light. Spooky.. huh?

One of these days I will build the modulated aperture method (being the easiest) and send a message between two computers, using just that mode of Entanglement.. and record/post it on You-Tube. And even then.. I bet most hard core Academics won't accept it.

Ok, bedtime.. hope to be by here again tomorrow night.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby BurtJordaan on August 3rd, 2013, 6:56 am 

Dave_Oblad wrote:Hi all,

Jorrie wrote:Messages/cause and effect actions do not go faster than c, or has ever been demonstrated to.

So the article I posted never happened? It's whole purpose was to prove, once and for all, that Entanglement is FASTER than Light. They closed all the loopholes. Live with it! Done deal.. move on!

No Dave, that experiment simply showed (again) that Bell's inequality is violated,* something that quantum mechanics predicted a very long time ago (~1964) and has been demonstrated over and over - it is standard QM - the entangled observations are non-local.

What the test claims is that it has removed one of the criticisms of previous Bell's inequality tests. I am not clued up enough to judge whether the claim is valid, but I did not notice it being published in any peer reviewed journal yet.

Secondly, how is your own version supposed to demonstrate that information is sent faster than c? It seems that you send the same information to two equidistant locations at c, arriving at at the two places simultaneously; so what's interesting about that? I could have sent two identical tortoises with identical messages stuck to their shells to two opposing points and have observers there read my messages simultaneously.

Again, no bits of information have ever been sent faster than c!

I know this is a philosophy spot, not for science, but if philosophers criticize science, they must a least present it correctly.

--
Regards
Jorrie

* 'Bell's Inequality' is a rather technical concept, but it suffices to say the it must be violated for quantum mechanics to hold. In essence it simply says that entangled particles cannot "know in advance" whether they will be observed and how. They have to somehow communicate instantly with each other. However, we are not privy to that communication, hence we cannot use it to transmit our own messages instantaneously (or faster than c).
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: A question of time and relativity

Postby owleye on August 3rd, 2013, 9:13 am 

JohnD wrote:Hi James
So far from my reading and rereading GR time is used as a coordinate to space hence spacetime.
The reference of time to gravity is a coincidence that is understandable. To me it is logical to think that if a measurement of time is taken at different levels above the earth's core there will be a difference in measurement as the rotation is different. Nothing in GR suggests to me the existence of time as a separate entity.


I'm afraid I have no way to assess your understanding of space-time or relativity theory in general. With that in mind, I don't see the above as in any way persuasive. In any case, the time-coordinate of space-time as a measure of distance (time, as it is quantified by the reading of a clock, multiplied by a conversion factor, that converts time to a measure of distance -- the constant of conversion being the speed of light) serves as a coordinate that divides space up into intervals whose objects travel at speeds that are time-like, light-like or space-like. It turns out that an object can only travel at speeds that are time-like, unless the object is considered a wave of light that propagates as a constant speed, in which case it travels in the light-like region of space. Time, in so far as it exists, is different than space, in a very physical way. Moreover, for any object in motion through space-time, that motion depends on whether or not it is an acceleration. Uniform motion is different, physically, from accelerated motion. And the difference is that under uniform motion, one moves through space-time only along the axis of the time coordinate. Moreover, in GR, space-time displaced the acceleration due to gravitation from being a feature of the mass-energy in a flat space to a field in space-time, warping it in accordance with that field. As a result, uniform motion doesn't follow a straight line, but a curved line. And one has to draw on a mathematical treatment that is much more complicated, but in effect reveals the same thing about time being different than space. The reading of a clock is not a measurement of distance, but a recognition that a period of time has elapsed. And it has been shown that the reading of a clock is dependent on its motions through space-time. Different paths taken, all of which are in time-like regions, through space-time produce different readings of the clock, compared to other paths taken. Comparisons are made when the different paths meet up again, and assume they were synchronized at the start.

How can this be if time doesn't exist or if time isn't a physical quantity?

James
owleye
 


Re: Time is a Separator

Postby Faradave on August 3rd, 2013, 1:19 pm 

Thanks for the insightful summary owleye. I'm not sure I got this part.
owleye wrote:Uniform motion is different, physically, from accelerated motion. And the difference is that under uniform motion, one moves through space-time only along the axis of the time coordinate.

I would have said "of its proper time coordinate". In a Minkowski diagram (which presumes flat spacetime) any straight path represents uniform motion, including those at an angle to the time coordinate.

Another distinction between time and space is the unidirectional freedom of time vs. bidirectional freedom of space. Simple systems (where every particle may be accounted for) appear insensitive to this, but it is always evident as increasing entropy with larger collections.

The reality of time becomes evident when seen as a separator of events in spacetime, every bit as physical as the separation provided by space. Two fermions (e.g. electrons) cannot occupy the same location at the same time. Given time to separate them, they may certainly occupy the same location.

The Pauli exclusion principle takes this further. Two fermions may not even occupy the same quantum state, even as that state may be probabilistically distributed in space (e.g. over an orbital). Again, the clear implication is at the same time. One can’t yet be sure about dark matter (I would include neutrinos here), but the Pauli exclusion principle is essential to the structure of all the ordinary matter we know.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1835
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Next

Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests