What the heck is Time?

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

What the heck is Time?

Postby Graeme M on January 13th, 2017, 7:31 am 

I've skimmed over a couple of threads here that talk about time and I must say a lot of it goes over my head. I have never really thought all that much about time, but when I do one question really grabs me. I wonder - is there a simple answer?

Let me rather messily explain where I'm at on this. I know that subjectively, the "present moment" as we experience it is a representation of past events given how slow our sensory processing is, and similarly that our subjective present moment is composed of a short window of memory in our brains. I more or less get that, what I'm more interested in is exactly how long any objective "now" takes. What is this "now" that causes us to experience time?

When I think about it, it seems that once a moment happens it is in the past and effectively has no further influence. The future on the other hand does not exist and can be described only in terms of possibilities.

So there is no past or future - the only "real" moment is some now moment. But what is that? Thinking further, I can't actually see time as anything at all, and it certainly doesn't seem to pass. That looks increasingly to me like an illusion of sensory processing, ie how our brains have evolved to enable us to behave in a changing world.

instead, all I can see is that time is really just a measure of change in the state of the universe, perhaps simply that each new arrangement of particles and forces emerges layered atop the last arrangement. Intriguingly though this line of thought gets untidy very quickly. For example, if change is at the level of particles and forces, then we can never measure time directly, because the act of measurement must by definition be a measure of a past state of the universe. The most probable state that arises from that measured should have already occurred, unless either a) "now" is actually quite lengthy such that our instruments CAN measure it, or b) our instruments are able to measure infinitely small changes ("slices of time").

And that right there is where I really go off the rails! If "time" is in effect change, what changes at the atomic or sub-atomic levels where all the action really is? How small can we slice time, or change, and still see something happening? For example, if a photon is emitted, there is some event, some change occurring. Is that time? Does it take some period of "time" to occur? Can we go smaller still? What happens when we get down to the limits of our understanding which I believe is the Planck scale?

Now I'm completely lost. Is time at our scale of perception simply the sum of changes, or events, at the tiniest of scales. But if so, from what little understanding I have, at the tiniest of scales there are no actual events, only possible events that appear only to gain form when we have macro scale behaviours.

Hmmm... perhaps the problem is that I simply have no idea what I'm talking about. So, let's just pull right back and ask a simple question.

Is time as I experience it even a real thing at all? What exactly is "now"?
Graeme M
Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 04 Nov 2015


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby BadgerJelly on January 13th, 2017, 8:13 am 

It's thing we measure distance with. That's it really!
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 13th, 2017, 8:40 am 

BadgerJelly » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:13 am wrote:It's thing we measure distance with. That's it really!


That's it? 6:39 am What's this then?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby vivian maxine on January 13th, 2017, 8:59 am 

ronjanec » January 13th, 2017, 7:40 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:13 am wrote:It's thing we measure distance with. That's it really!


That's it? 6:39 am What's this then?


The distance you have traveled from 6:38?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
BadgerJellyDave_Oblad liked this post


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 13th, 2017, 9:17 am 

vivian maxine » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:59 am wrote:
ronjanec » January 13th, 2017, 7:40 am wrote:
BadgerJelly » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:13 am wrote:It's thing we measure distance with. That's it really!


That's it? 6:39 am What's this then?


The distance you have traveled from 6:38?


It's actually a measurement of a rate of motion or movement BJ(not "distance") Or the particular rate of the earth's 360 degree rotational motion or movement on a daily basis.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 13th, 2017, 9:19 am 

"is there a simple answer"? "Time" exists as a word man uses to call and identify the many different results of his timekeeping system. That's about as "simple" as I can make it Graeme.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 13th, 2017, 9:53 am 

"Now" basically only exists as an observation Graeme(no real objective existence): What actually exists here when man talks about "now", is actually the current state or condition of all collective existence(everything and everyone existing anywhere right now);

The "now" state or condition of much less than a second ago(or again, the state or condition of all collective existence) has now forever changed, and now only exists as an observation by man, about a previous state or condition of all collective existence, or what is now called "the past" by man;

The "past" state or condition of all collective existence has no objective existence today, and also before, when this was again only existing as an observation called "now" by man.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Heck Check

Postby Faradave on January 13th, 2017, 12:03 pm 

Graeme M wrote:What exactly is "now"?

Einstein would have considered "now" one of four coordinate values necessary to specify your location in 4D spacetime. As such they are relative to some 4D origin, in the same way three Cartesian coordinates specify a spatial location relative to the origin of the given coordinate system. I believe Einstein would have considered the selection of a 4D origin to be arbitrary (again, as with selection of a Cartesian origin in space) but I consider nature to have provided us with an effectively absolute origin in the Big Bang event. From that perspective, "now" is about 13.7 billion years.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby TheVat on January 13th, 2017, 1:47 pm 

Don't we have another extremely active (215 posts in the last 10 days) thread going on the nature of time??

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=32187&start=0

Perhaps that other thread has too high a noise-to-signal ratio. And it veered far into philosophy. Maybe worth checking out anyway.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7298
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 13th, 2017, 3:41 pm 

Braininvat » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:47 am wrote:Don't we have another extremely active (215 posts in the last 10 days) thread going on the nature of time??

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 87&start=0

Perhaps that other thread has too high a noise-to-signal ratio. And it veered far into philosophy. Maybe worth checking out anyway.


"And it veered far into philosophy"? Well, I certainly should hope so Biv. After all, it was located on the philosophy side of the forum. :) (Actually, I thought it veered too far into just physics instead)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby TheVat on January 13th, 2017, 4:14 pm 

Yes, my post would have made more sense if I added that that thread started out in physics. (Which sorta explains all the veering, I guess)
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7298
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 13th, 2017, 4:50 pm 

Braininvat » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:14 pm wrote:Yes, my post would have made more sense if I added that that thread started out in physics. (Which sorta explains all the veering, I guess)


Actually, your post did make a lot of sense originally Biv: Many people have a very limited knowledge of philosophical terminology and meaning...and hence little or no interest: And too much philosophy in a particular thread may turn many people off from the same thread just like you were cautioning people about in your post. Still, I just couldn't help myself Biv, and had to kid you about your original statement. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 17th, 2017, 8:44 pm 

I have your answer but it will be drowned out by the sound of jeers and catcalls. Luckily I've pissed off enough people that I have the time to work out the math in the personal theories section in pure silence.

Time is information reported by clocks and delayed by the speed of light. This delay, due to separation, prevents us from sharing a common present. We can only calculate (from the future) what present we had shared (in the past). The delay also allows us to manipulate the information thereby manipulate time as is done in the twin paradox. Just look at the twin paradox where there is a handoff of clock information between an outgoing participant and an incoming one. There is no relative aging between any of the 3 participants (no one ages slower), only the clock information ages slower between where it started and once it returns. In actual fact, contrary to relativity, the slower aging begins after the handoff and ends before the participant gets back to earth. (I'm working out the formula that governs this but it's premature to announce victory yet so take this post with a grain of salt.)
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 17th, 2017, 10:53 pm 

"Time is information reported by clocks and delayed by the speed of light"?

I have noticed that when the "time"/"information" reported on my personal clock is running slower or "delayed" in comparison to other clocks, that it is always just the battery running low. You are saying that this was actually caused by the speed of light?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 18th, 2017, 4:24 am 

Hi ralfcis,

You will have an uphill battle trying to prove the clocks lost/gained time but those with the clocks didn't age (slower of faster) as their own personal clocks indicate. The mechanism for aging and timekeeping are tied together.

The Twin Paradox can be done in a lab without leaving the room. It's called the Centrifuge Experiment. There are two clocks.. one in the center and one on the end of the arm. You start up the rotation and hold at a constant RPM. The center clock will tick faster than the arm clock. When all the dust settles (mathematically speaking) you will conclude the only difference between the clocks is the total path length difference each clock experienced during the experiment. The arm clock will have aged slower than the center clock.. period.

Thus Clock dilation is due solely to absolute velocity relative to Light Speed (gravity was a constant in the lab).

Both Gravity and absolute Velocity alter the Geometrical Mechanics of Matter. Exposure to either or both causes clocks and aging to slow down. Thus clocks don't actually measure Real Time. Clocks are basically speedometers and weight scales (and both). We need to differentiate Time as what clocks measure from Real Time, which is Universal.

Nothing or no one gets to a fixed point in the future any faster or slower than anything or anyone else.

That's the difference between Real Time and what clocks/aging/dilation measure.

Relativity is more about calculating clock differentials (dilation's) than being concerned with absolute Real Time. Mixed with Speed of Light limitations, Transit Delays and Warped Space makes for a pretty cluttered terrain to navigate and comprehend. Our GPS System should be right up there as the 8th wonder of the world, IMHO.

It's really pretty simple when you stand back and see the whole picture. That's the lesson learned from the 7 Blind men in a room, each exploring their unique piece of an Elephant. Absolute Time, and the nature of it, gets swept under the proverbial rug, when all you have is clocks made of matter/energy to work with.

Sorry, this post wasn't solely targeted towards you Ralfcis. I just get carried away some times.. lol.

I've already offered my personal ideas about the nature of Real Time on other threads. How long it will take for Science to adopt my view is just a Matter of Time. (sorry.. I couldn't resist the pun.. but really.. other notables are slowly coming on board, so Time will tell.. dang.. I did it again)

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


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 18th, 2017, 5:49 am 

Ronjanec,
If you take a hammer to your clock, has time stopped or has your clock stopped? The information is no longer being reported accurately. However, it takes time for the news of your clock's demise to reach those farther out who will see your clock still reporting time info accurately until they don't.
A deeper question is what's real here; is the clock alive or dead. Is its info its sole reality? Does it remain functional so long as there are observers out there who can see it function? I've only recently concluded that reality itself is nothing more than information.

Dave
No uphill battle here. If Alice is leaving earth at constant velocity and she meets Charlie going back at the same constant velocity and at the point that they meet, Charlie syncs his clock to Alice's, then when Charlie returns to earth he and Alice and the earth have all aged at the same rate of time but the clock info Alice had at the start, sync'd to earth time, will show to have changed (run slower) during the voyage. The change won't begin until after the handoff. There is no relative aging between participants going at constant relative velocity. These are just mathematical facts from relativity. What I dispute is how long the change takes to complete between the handoff and reaching earth.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby hyksos on January 18th, 2017, 7:19 am 

Time is information reported by clocks and delayed by the speed of light. This delay, due to separation, prevents us from sharing a common present.

This is the correct answer.

Caveat Emptor: that is the correct answer if this is going to be in the Physics section of this forum. Between myself, Dave O, and ralfcis, there is enough of a consensus on this issue to post it as our official stance on the topic. This is at least a safe dry, stable spot to begin to address time from the perspective of an "introductory physics text" (lets say).
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1676
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 18th, 2017, 7:22 am 

Hi ralfcis,

I disagree.

Assume Alice and Charlie are the same youngish age but Charlie has started way out.. far from Earth.

Suppose Alice left a Twin on Earth. Alice and Charlie both jumped instantly to 99% light speed at the same time towards each other. She coasted for some time by her clock and waved at Charlie as she passed him by, with Charlie headed in the opposite direction, back towards Earth. Then I agree Alice and Charlie are both aging at the same very slow rate (basically) but when Charlie gets to Earth and instantly stops to visit Alice's Twin, may discover that Alice's Twin has been long dead of old age. Funny, they were all the same age when this started.

For the sake of argument, I'm ignoring Acceleration and Deceleration aspects. You seem to take issue with the fact that both Alice and Charlie are aging at equally slow rates. So what?

relatvty.gif
Lorentz Dilation Equation

Do you see two people/objects represented in the Equation above? No.. you only see one object Dilated by its Absolute Velocity Relative to Light Speed. Some may argue that C2 is just some mysterious constant that works but.. get real. It's all right there in Black and White (ok.. some blue too). It's the naked backbone of Relativity.

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


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 18th, 2017, 7:38 am 

Dave if I answer your other points it will hijack this thread. However I will briefly resopnd:

"The arm clock will have aged slower than the center clock.. period."

I have to agree. If I remodel your test set up into a satellite widely orbiting a distant planet and the satellite passes the earth periodically, this is the classical twin paradox scenario. Both planets are in the same constant velocity frame so if the satellite is aging relatively slower to us according to the twin paradox, it is also aging relatively slower to the planet it orbits.

"Thus Clock dilation is due solely to absolute velocity relative to Light Speed (gravity was a constant in the lab)."

No, all velocities relative to c, are c.


"Nothing or no one gets to a fixed point in the future any faster or slower than anything or anyone else." True, everyone arrives at the same present moment together, it's just their relative aging on the journey may differ.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 18th, 2017, 8:10 am 

Hi ralfcis,

ralfcis wrote:No, all velocities relative to c, are c.

Really? (c) is 300,000 Kilometers per second.
If I'm traveling at 10,000 Kilometers per second then my speed is a specific ratio of c.
If you are traveling at 20,000 Kilometers per second then your speed is a specific ratio of c.
Do you contend that both our ratios are equal?

Perhaps I misunderstand your statement.

Anyway, may be getting off track.. apologies.

ralfcis wrote:True, everyone arrives at the same present moment together, it's just their relative aging on the journey may differ.

Fully agreed. The issue is that the term "Time" has such a broad spectrum of meanings.

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


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 18th, 2017, 8:44 am 

Dave,

If Alice is leaving earth at a constant velocity, she is not aging relative to earth.
If Charlie is approaching earth at a constant velocity, he is not aging relative to earth. It can even be viewed that approaching earth is the same thing as Alice leaving earth with a negative velocity.
If both Alice and Charlie are moving at the same constant velocity relative to each other then everyone is aging at the same normal rate. Even at the handoff point everyone in the ships and on the earth is the same age. But, yes, by the time Charlie arrives on earth, Alice's twin is long dead. Here's the key to understanding this paradox. How did they all start at the same age, even met at the same age, yet Charlie brought back some time info that, like a virus, rapidly aged the earth but did not rapidly age Alice even though she is still aging at the same normal rate as the earth and charlie.

The answer lies in the TV pictures all were beaming out. The earth and Alice saw each others TV images going at slow motion while the earth and Charlie saw each others TV images going in fast forward speed. The motion speed is not an indication of relative aging. So long as both receivers and transmitters of the TV signal see the same motion speed, they are reciprocally time dilating but not relatively aging. As soon as there's an imbalance in the motion speed, one participant is aging slower than the other. The reason Charlie returns to Alice's dead twin is the handoff switches from Alice's slow motion signal to where at .6c the earth sees Alice's clock age 1 year for every 2 years the earth ages (and reciprocally Alice sees the earth's clock age 1 year for every 2 years Alice ages) to Alice's handed off clock on Charlie's ship aging 2 years for every year the earth ages after the earth receives news a handoff has happened. During that delay of information, Charlie has been seeing the earth age 2 years for every year Charlie ages which means he has aged slower for longer. The time he has aged slower for longer is the time of the signal delay that a clock handoff has occurred. Just a delay of clock info has resulted in a real difference in aging of the participants. Only until all the clock info is gathered can there be a determination of relative aging because the clock info that's delayed in transit is unknown. This is why we can't make a determination of Alice's relative aging (even though her twin is dust) because some of her clock info is delayed in transit. In a sense, her reality is delayed in transit.
Last edited by ralfcis on January 18th, 2017, 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 18th, 2017, 8:57 am 

"Really? (c) is 300,000 Kilometers per second.
If I'm traveling at 10,000 Kilometers per second then my speed is a specific ratio of c.
If you are traveling at 20,000 Kilometers per second then your speed is a specific ratio of c.
Do you contend that both our ratios are equal?"


No, 0c, .1c .9c, .6c are different ratios but their relative velocity to c is c.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ronjanec on January 18th, 2017, 9:54 am 

Like hyksos just mentioned, and reminded me...this is in the physics section of the forum: So I am going stop posting my usual metaphysical in nature type comments here, and let you guys work this out without my personal comments.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 18th, 2017, 6:38 pm 

Hi ralfcis,

Ok, I see what you are doing. If everything could be synced to start at the same time (by a common remote Nova at the same distance from both of them, then Charlies TV reception would be from a Earth transmission many years ago. He is obviously not seeing Earth of the present. As he heads for the Earth, he will watch Time on Earth appear accelerated. Alice is seeing Earth's Transmission appear in slow motion. As they pass each other, their clocks would read the same (synced by that Nova) and at that moment of passing each other, both would agree on Earth Time based solely on TV reception from Earth, which of course is not the real present time on Earth, given the Transit Time of the broadcast to reach their current common remote position (still far from Earth).

So what? If the transmission is from/about Alice's Twin, then Alice will happily watch her Twin grow old very slowly, while Charlie see's Alice's Twin age rapidly, maybe even Die of old age before he can reach Alice's Twin in person.

Do you see anything wrong in my translation of your Problem? I see no advantage over Relativity in using Transit Delays and Doppler Effects.

Anyway, it does explore Temporal Perception in a round about way and I see no issues here. The only Paradox in the Twin problem is Relativity can't be choosy on which party (Earth or Travelers) to use as a reference. Since it does matter which one is more stationary (the Paradox), it only goes to support my original observation. Aging is slowed by pure motion/velocity relative to Light Speed.. period.

Anyway, if I wanted to attack Relativity, there is an even bigger Elephant in the room that gets glossed over. But that would be going off track in defining Time, so I won't go there.

(back on track I hope)

Note: In the following I'm ignoring Gravity for simplicity.

Do clocks measure Time? Yes.. (by convention) clocks are in sync with aging locally. If we ignore transit delays, then no two clocks can agree on "Time" if they are moving at different velocities relative to Light Speed.

If you can adjust your velocity by measuring the red shift of the CMB in all directions as being equal (in flat space), then you are stationary and will have the fastest timekeeping clock in the Universe. Or conversely, if one can judge their speed by the CMB and determine their Velocity is 99% Light Speed, then that clock will still be in sync with aging of this said traveler, but will be radically different (slowed) from the stationary clock.

So, do Clocks measure Time or Velocity? (velocity of course)

So is there a Real Time? A Universal Time? Yes, as demonstrated by the simple fact that Tomorrow doesn't Exist yet. If one could put a Nail into a precise point in the Future, then regardless of personal velocity and dilated clocks, all travelers will arrive at that temporal Nail simultaneously. That's Real Time IMO.

Pundits that argue against the concept of Simultaneity will be quelled if/when we achieve FTL communications, perhaps via Quantum Entanglement someday. But FTL is very controversial today, so perhaps best left off the table for now.

I predict Science is about to take some very strange turns and I am privileged to have a ring side seat. Quite the show I expect (I try to remain optimistic).

Ok, I have to leave for awhile.. back later.

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


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 19th, 2017, 7:04 am 

If everything could be synced to start at the same time .

There are two types of syncing: setting your clocks to the same accuracy and setting them to the same time. Since the laws of physics are the same everywhere, setting atomic clocks to the same accuracy is an automatic given. Setting them to the same time can be done at any time taking into account relativistic effects. So we don't need a nova. Just knowing all 3 clocks run accurately, we just need to note the time at the start, at the handoff and at the end, the clocks are closest to each other at this point so the delay between their presents is at a minimum.

So what? If the transmission is from/about Alice's Twin, then Alice will happily watch her Twin grow old very slowly, while Charlie see's Alice's Twin age rapidly, maybe even Die of old age before he can reach Alice's Twin in person.

Not exactly true. The image you are watching is pre-recorded by delay so the fast-forward and slow motion are of an image transmission stored by the time delay of space. You can only fast-forward pre-recorded TV but as soon as you catch up to real time, your image speed changes to normal.

I see no advantage over Relativity in using Transit Delays and Doppler Effects.

Relativity can't predict relative aging as it's occurring using reciprocal time dilation, it must wait until the spacetime path ends. I'm working on the math that shows relative aging right from the start.

The only Paradox in the Twin problem is Relativity can't be choosy on which party (Earth or Travelers) to use as a reference. Since it does matter which one is more stationary (the Paradox), it only goes to support my original observation. Aging is slowed by pure motion/velocity relative to Light Speed.. period.

It's a strawman paradox made up by relativity based on reciprocal time dilation which is an illusion of perception. So your conclusion solving a problem that doesn't exist is about as valid as the problem itself. Your statement is not even true on its own. Relative to light speed? What is meant by that? Also you can have motion without slowed aging but if you're equating reciprocal time dilation to slowed aging, they are two different things.

Do clocks measure Time? Yes.. (by convention) clocks are in sync with aging locally. If we ignore transit delays, then no two clocks can agree on "Time" if they are moving at different velocities relative to Light Speed.

Ouch, loose language sinks meaning. Everyone in a constant velocity frame, no matter what that constant velocity, is aging at the same rate (which is called the speed of light through time in relativity). If two frames have a relative velocity between them, they are not relatively aging because there is no way to compare their clocks to get an agreement on time. Yes, it took me 2.5 years to learn this and it's a confusing statement you won't ever get a relativist to admit.

Look at it this way. Relative velocity is not fixed, there is no moving frame and no stationary frame. Relativity just invented all that to get around the twin paradox which also doesn't exist. You need to dump all that relativistic clap trap out of your head. Look at the problem in reverse. Let's say two pilots had to stay at 0 velocity relative to each other. They would have to maintain communication with each other, if either changed speed there would have to be a delay in the other to maintain 0 relative velocity. The same is true of how the universe handles relative velocities. A change in one of the participants takes time to propagate to the other so he has to catch up to the new relative velocity. But he has no conscious knowledge of this so the laws of relativity take care of it for him. It's like the sun disappearing and the earth will orbit nothing for 8 minutes. Relativity is the mechanism that runs all this; relative aging kicks in during the lag time for the change to propagate between participants.

I'll just leave it here for you to absorb the new world order.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 19th, 2017, 5:07 pm 

Hi Ralfcis,

You have already accepted the Centrifuge Experiment. It clearly demonstrates the Twin Paradox. It has no changing delay between Center and Arm Clocks because the distance between them is a constant and it has no Doppler Effects for the same reason. All it does have is two clocks running with different Dilation Factors in the same room. Thus the Dilation is due to the difference in space path lengths each clock travels in the Frame of the Room subjected to the same Real Time. Of course I'm misusing the term "Frame" as Relativity only considers a Shared Frame to mean Same Velocity relative to Light Speed.

Ralfcis wrote:Ouch, loose language sinks meaning. Everyone in a constant velocity frame, no matter what that constant velocity, is aging at the same rate (which is called the speed of light through time in relativity).

I think you meant:
"Ouch, loose language sinks meaning. Everyone in a constant velocity frame, no matter what that constant velocity, is aging at the same Constant rate (which is called the speed of light through time in relativity)."

I added the word "Constant" because your expression implies the word "Identical". Different Velocities = Different Dilations = Different Clock Rates. That's all the Lorentz Dilation Equation tells us.

Or you could have said:
"Ouch, loose language sinks meaning. Everyone in a constant Shared velocity frame, no matter what that constant velocity, is aging at the same rate (which is called the speed of light through time in relativity)."

I added the word "Shared" to make your statement accurate.

In a Universe where everything is moving at potentially different Velocities then the only Anchor that Einstein and Company could use for a constant reference is Light Speed. Thus: all speeds from 0 to c must be Relative to Light Speed. Just knowing the Differential Speed between two objects is insufficient information to compute their Clock Differential simply because the Lorentz Equation is Non-Linear.

For example: If Alice and Charlie had a speed differential of 24% of c and Alice was stationary then the Dilation differential is just based on Charlie going 24% of c. (a very small Dilation differential). Now kick Alice up to 75% of Light Speed and Charlie is still faster by the same 24%, then Alice is moving at 75% Light Speed and Charlie is at 99% Light Speed. Now the differentials in their respective Dilation's is Huge between them even though the differential is the same as when Alice was stationary and Charlie was 24% c. Why? Because the Lorentz Equation is Non-Linear and only cares about absolute velocity relative to Light Speed for a single object. Thus simple Math Problems in Relativity are bogus if the only information used is Differential Velocities between two objects. And that's the aspect that gets glossed over.

Prove it to yourself. Use the Lorentz Equation and find that the dilation's are:
(mps = miles per second)
Alice = 1 (speed=0 mps)
Charlie = 1.0300116938564743 (speed=44640 mps)

Now keeping the same differential speeds for Alice at 75% Light Speed and Charlie at 99% c:
Alice = 1.5089219472021371 (speed=139500 mps)
Charlie = 6.612614772453471 (speed=184149 mps)

The speed difference is a constant 44640 mps.. but with two very different dilation results based on their absolute velocities. That's the effect of using a non-linear equation.

That's what gets glossed over in Relativity Problems. They give you two different Velocities to compute the clock differentials while not stating these are actually absolute velocities while pretending all that matters is the differential in the two Velocities. Either that or the Lorentz Equation is wrong.. take your pick.

Anyway, all this shows that Clocks only Measure Local Time passage and are 1:1 with Local Aging. That's why I say clocks don't measure Real Time, just local passage of Time totally dependent on their Absolute Velocity through Space.

So to answer the Question of the OP:
Clocks measure the local passage of Time but act more like local speedometers.
Real Time is the Birds Eye view perspective connected to the Universes natural progression toward the future. The Arrow of Time is connected to this natural forward progression.

To explain where this natural progression forward in Real Time comes from.. would take us into Personal Theories and I won't go there on this Forum. Hopefully.. I've logically answered the OP at the cost of making a bunch of Relativists a bit angry at me.. lol.

Some Relativists may debate that the Centrifuge Experiment violates Relativity as it is composed of an infinite series of Frames due to Acceleration aspects caused by Rotation. Duh.. That can be worked out mathematically and is what I meant earlier when I said roughly: "after the Math dust settles".

Finally, that Gravity affects clocks means there is a connection between Gravity and Velocity. I could explain what that connection is but once again.. that would take us into Personal Theories and is a No-No on this Forum.

Otherwise, what I've said on this Thread is logically (and mathematically) sound and supported within. I see no reason to drag in external authorities given the internal format and logic I have used.

Ok, have to get to work.. Later.

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


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 19th, 2017, 6:55 pm 

Sorry, let's agree to disagree. I don't think either one of us can convince the other.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 20th, 2017, 6:31 am 

Dave,
I'm gonna try to help you out because the point you're stuck on is the same point I was stuck on for years. You're defining relative velocity relative to a fixed CMB. If you're not doing that, then you switch over to defining your velocity relative to the speed of light. The speed of light is constant for everyone so we can all relate to it the same way. .6c the speed of light for 1 frame is .6c for another. right? I was defining my relative velocity to a triangulation of stars because they're so far away that their motion looks like 0 velocity to us. All these logical and common interpretations of relative velocity are DEAD WRONG . . period (as you often like to spell out your punctuation for emphasis.)

In conjunction, you like to think that because frames are moving relative to each other that everyone is aging at a different rate within each frame. This is also dead wrong. People are considered stationary within their frames. As it is for Gallelean relativity, a person inside a boat with no windows has no way to tell if he is moving or at constant velocity. You're saying open a window and look and you can tell you're moving wrt the background. Relativity throws in a wrench to that idea by saying there may be stagehands behind the scene moving the scenery past your boat. Whether you're moving at constant velocity or stationary you are stationary within your frame and hence time flows at the normal rate. It is identical for everyone. But saying constant velocity is meaningless, it must be a constant velocity relative to another participant, not to some absolute like the background. Your aging rate does not change for you, it changes relative to another participant. Your definition of relative velocity is the definition of absolute velocity and you just can't see that. Until you do, we can go no further.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 20th, 2017, 9:40 am 

Hi ralfcis,

ralfcis wrote: Whether you're moving at constant velocity or stationary you are stationary within your frame and hence time flows at the normal rate.

There is your error. What does "normal" rate mean?

You seem to be saying that if I had 100 different travelers, all traveling at different speeds relative to any single object or CMB or relative to the Speed of Light.. and they are all coasting.. that all travelers will be aging at the exact same rate. (that view is false or the Twin Paradox wouldn't exist)

Anyway.. this is not what the Lorentz Equation is saying. It draws an exact clock dilation value specific to your velocity through the Fabric of Space-Time. It doesn't concern itself with differential velocities except V2/C2, where V is the velocity of an object and C is a constant.

It is quite clear to say that the faster your speed.. the slower your clocks will be running (even when coasting or inertial).

The Centrifuge Experiment proves this and you already agreed to that fact.

Between the Center Clock and Arm Clock in the same room with rotation held constant, the only difference between the two clocks is the path length traveled in the same period of time. Since the Arm Clock is traveling a greater distance through Space than the Center Clock, it thus has greater velocity and it will dilate more and its measurement of Time will be slower than the Center Clock. Granted, the Arm Clock is following a curved path.. but that can be factored out and still leave the Arm Clock running slower than the Center Clock.

It's simple and straight forward, so I don't understand how you can't see that. I've been watching your debate with Jorrie regarding you Personal Theory and even jumped in at least once, but you didn't engage there where it was appropriate.

So let's just drop the debate on Relativity and get your response to the OP (What is Time?).

I've taken the stance that there are two types of Time. One we use Clocks to Measure, which are all over the map, and a Universal Real Time set by the Universe.

How do you define Time?

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


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 20th, 2017, 9:55 am 

There is your error. What does "normal" rate mean?

What does it mean when you view a program at fast forward or slow motion and at normal rate? If someone was standing beside you, you could recognize if he was going in fast forward or slow motion. It's the resultant time rate that we experience going at the speed of light through time. We always experience that but if we were moving and sending some of our speed of light allotment through space, then our speed of light through time would slow down as seen by another frame we were moving relative to. That's what it means. I didn't read the rest because that is a program caught in an endless loop.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Next

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests