What is spacetime made of?

[Gregorygregg1]

Greg,

Sometimes it sounds like we may be on the same page using different terminology: You do understand that I am not saying that time does not exist right? I am actually trying to say that time does not exist as an object.

Got it.
G.G.

[ronjanec]

G.G and everyone,

And while I am on the subject: While it is again true that time does exist in a number of different ways(word/speech, thoughts, clocks, spacetime, etc.), that does not mean that time also exists in the most important way, or as an independent naturally occuring distinct object(My most important point in these discussions).

People failing to see or understand this very important distinction, is also one of the major reasons that most time discussions end in total confusion.

[ronjanec]

Man using the same word time to represent the many different results of his timekeeping system, and the same word also having a singular tense, has really added to all the confusion when people were trying to answer the question of what is time? Or, in trying to figure out the actual nature of time;

For example: "What is time?" "Time is this and that, and also this and that, and also this and that now that I have thought about this for a little longer" "Hey, you forgot time is also this you stupid dummy" "Sorry"

And an example of the singular tense leading us astray: "What is time?" "Time must be one thing in particular right?" "Or some kind of single object?" "It must also somehow be independent of all this other time stuff right?" "What in the world is this thing?"

People were always searching for, or trying to define a "singular object" that never really existed in the first place!

[Gregorygregg1]

Doesn't it all come down to: The only time that exists is the one you occupy at any instant? How you use this instant determines your now.

[littletrio]

I swiped this from Hegel, today. "Time, like space, is a pure form of sensuous perception or intuition. It is the condition of all immediate active perception, as well as that which is perceived i.e. of all experience, and all which is experience. Nature is made of space and time, and is a process. When we stress its spatial aspect, we are aware of its objective nature; when we stress its temporal aspect, we become aware of its subjective nature. As we perceive it, nature is an unending and continuous process of becoming. Things arrive and depart within time. Such things are not only withing time, but they are also temporal-time is a way of existing."

[gerhard]

I swiped this from Hegel, today. "Time, like space, is a pure form of sensuous perception or intuition. It is the condition of all immediate active perception, as well as that which is perceived i.e. of all experience, and all which is experience. Nature is made of space and time, and is a process. When we stress its spatial aspect, we are aware of its objective nature; when we stress its temporal aspect, we become aware of its subjective nature. As we perceive it, nature is an unending and continuous process of becoming. Things arrive and depart within time. Such things are not only withing time, but they are also temporal-time is a way of existing."

Sensations are so variable, I don't feel comfortable using perception alone to explore nature's mysteries.

[ronjanec]

Einstein said "Time is the movement of a clock": I vastly prefer his to the point and very simple explanation, over Hegel's "trying to make a mountain out of a molehill explanation".

[littletrio]

Sensations are so variable, I don't feel comfortable using perception alone to explore nature's mysteries.

Here, Here, I agree. I realize that empirical truths are subjective and belong to the holder. But, one has to admit, that space, time, objects, casuality, and a few more are a`priori/intuitive reality. Also, space, time, casuality are a Kantian/Aristotlian category. Since this ability is inherent in most humans, one, has to consider that this ability is deciding what we perceive. Every scientific truth has been discovered with the innate lean/views/twist of the originator.

Now, Schopenhauer argued that our perception creates the world according to the four types of cause and effect...logical, physical, mathematical, and moral. But, this is another story. We could go on for days with different theories and the like. I think it is important not to fall into the metaphysical "do we exist trap" that has plagued the minds of many like Hegel; which is the direction this topic would leads us because of the subjective reality of our compuational perceptions/senses.

There is a maxim I use quite frequently..."Believe nothing you hear, believe half of what you see; then have your eyes checked every six months." I think this dilemma exists for the sole purpose of protecting the host body. Meaning your mind and body are separate, your mind wants what is best for the body, which forces it to see what it wants to see. This is only thing I can think of that cause 85% of the population to live in a delusional subjective lala land.

[littletrio]

Einstein said "Time is the movement of a clock": I vastly prefer his to the point and very simple explanation, over Hegel's "trying to make a mountain out of a molehill explanation".

Ah, Occam's Razor.

Einstein was not looking trying to explore the subjective reality of our intuitive experience. Einstein was looking for a way to prove mathematically his theory of relativity. He needed to use space and time as variables, to explain the affects of gravity and the speed of light.

True, Hegel was a mystical eloquent writer with a big imagination, but that is the glory of life.

But, the Occam's Razor from my viewpoint to these gravitational and velocity paradox's is this.....For humans to survive on Earth, one must be grounded, which explains gravity. Without illumination, there would be no life. Light travels from the sun at a determined rate of speed to support life. This then transcends into all forms of human light. Simplicity.

[ronjanec]

Einstein said "Time is the movement of a clock": I vastly prefer his to the point and very simple explanation, over Hegel's "trying to make a mountain out of a molehill explanation".

Ah, Occam's Razor.

Einstein was not looking trying to explore the subjective reality of our intuitive experience. Einstein was looking for a way to prove mathematically his theory of relativity. He needed to use space and time as variables, to explain the affects of gravity and the speed of light.

True, Hegel was a mystical eloquent writer with a big imagination, but that is the glory of life.

But, the Occam's Razor from my viewpoint to these gravitational and velocity paradox's is this.....For humans to survive on Earth, one must be grounded, which explains gravity. Without illumination, there would be no life. Light travels from the sun at a determined rate of speed to support life. This then transcends into all forms of human light. Simplicity.

Yes, Occam's Razor indeed littletrio. Actually, someone asked him the question "what is time?", and that was his response to the same question. But if you think about what he said in response, this does actually represent reality, at least from the human perspective.

[littletrio]

Yes, Occam's Razor indeed littletrio. Actually, someone asked him the question "what is time?", and that was his response to the same question. But if you think about what he said in response, this does actually represent reality, at least from the human perspective.

Ah, now that you put it in that manner.....I see it is more than Occam's Razor. I jumped the gun and did not think it through. Einstein was, in a sense, extremely ambiguious calling time a subjective/objective enitity and looking for the simpliest explanation, at the same time.

If, one, looks at Leibniz's mondal theory, one can easily connect the dots to the theory of relativity. Now, Einstein, could have been completely ignorant of the fact or it could have been unconscious reproduction that produced a innovation. I would wager that he was well versed in Leibniz and I can see why. I am not saying that Einstein consciously swiped his idea from Leibniz, I am saying, he read Leibniz and it provided a root which lead to the relativity theory. My favorite Einstein quote "great spirits will always meet resistance from mediocre minds."

[ronjanec]

littletrio,

I have personally gotten into some very complicated, and very deep metaphysical/ontological explanations regarding time here on the forum, but at the end of the day, and for all practical purposes, time is still basically just a type of measuring system man that invented, or again "the movement of a clock" like Mr. Einstein said.

[littletrio]

littletrio,

I have personally gotten into some very complicated, and very deep metaphysical/ontological explanations regarding time here on the forum, but at the end of the day, and for all practical purposes, time is still basically just a type of measuring system man that invented, or again "the movement of a clock" like Mr. Einstein said.

I whole heartedly agree. If, you look at all posts in regards to this subject, you will see that I feel the same way, pretty much word for word. But, one must admit that time is a intrinsic a`priori or it is a impression developed from our empirical senses that would render time a extrinsic a`posteriori, this is my dilemma.

[littletrio]

Ronjanec, in regards to my Einstein ambiguity statement. Einstein, stating that time is "the movement of a clock", gives me the impression that....one, time is objective because a clock is a actual object; two, time is subjective by the fact that it is just a movement on the clock and doesn't exist; three, Einstein uses time to establish the theory of relativity, time of course doesn't exist, but is a merely a tool, but the tool is linear, which could give one a invalid analysis.

This is the problem with using time as a reference point. The theory of relativity could be in all reality, incorrect. If, one is trying to measure something non-linear with a linear tool, one would get a false reading.

But, my posts and thoughts, in regards to Einstein, are merely just reflections on how he used time. His use of time, has created a myriad of problems in regards to the ultimate reality of time. I would say the biggest is since he and others used it as a tool, those less informed, misinterpret the tool as a physical reality. I am, also, placing myself in his shoes, trying to see things from his eyes.

[ronjanec]

littletrio,

Almost anyone who has more than a sixth grade education should be able to understand what time is: Someone trying to understand how time actually exists, or how time exists ontologically, is a completely different story and a real nightmare. To understand this, you must also understand the meaning of existence and being.

I went down this 'rabbit hole' myself, and learned that when you do in fact understand time ontologically, your conclusions will actually have very little real world application or importance except in some areas of science(and no one will be able to understand you when you do try to explain this to them).

So again, and my point in my last post: What is time? "Time is the movement of a clock" Einstein's easy to understand and simple definition, should work for most people during the course of their lifetime.

If this is not enough for someone, then they better prepare themselves for many years of hard work in trying to figure this all out, because there is no "easy" way with this particular subject. I personally believe that this is by far the most difficult of all subjects to try to understand from an ontological perspective.

[ronjanec]

littletrio,

From an ontological perspective, time is not the distinct physical thing or object that is actually physically existing and moving here: The distinct physical thing or object that is actually physically existing and moving here is in physical reality the electronic device or clock(you must be one thing or the other) Or this is actually, or again, in physical reality something else actually physically existing and moving here.

4:57pm 4:58pm 4:59pm: And as I have tried to explain before in the past on the forum, time said to be existing here, is actually only a word man uses to describe this(or a definition, and a mental distinction that man makes about this)

So time does in fact exist here at least definitively, but time is no way a physical thing or object that is actually existing and moving here spatially littletrio.

But this is what I mean by 'going down the rabbit hole'.......

[littletrio]

^^If, you take the time to read my previous posts. I basically stated what you said right from the get go. I like the subject and I like looking at all the ontological issues inherent in the dilemma of time. I just like talking about it and seeing how other feel. I am here to learn!!!

[ronjanec]

^^If, you take the time to read my previous posts. I basically stated what you said right from the get go. I like the subject and I like looking at all the ontological issues inherent in the dilemma of time. I just like talking about it and seeing how other feel. I am here to learn!!!

Well, when you say time has an objective existence because a clock has an objective existence, this is kind of like someone calling a horse(an object) a chicken, and then saying that the 'chicken' also has an objective existence, and that is incorrect.

I am again trying to say that yes the clock has an objective existence, but time has no objective existence here, or anywhere else littletrio.

[gerhard]

From littletrio and rojanec I get that our perceptions have to be considered valid even though the subject escapes comprehension. Basically, if we don't have a simple way of dealing with it we'll probably go crazy trying to find out. I too have been down the rabbit hole like many others, but it is an exercise that strengthens the mind, just like exercise builds muscle. I would like to introduce some of the ways ancients viewed matter, to see if others can work with those ideas and come up with something, because I am not getting ahead.

Do you want a few principles to start with?

[littletrio]

^^^gerhand, glad to see you appreciate the creative thought process. Many are offended by it, but great minds see the beauty, in it. I would love for you to start a thread, in regards to matter.

[ronjanec]

From littletrio and rojanec I get that our perceptions have to be considered valid even though the subject escapes comprehension. Basically, if we don't have a simple way of dealing with it we'll probably go crazy trying to find out. I too have been down the rabbit hole like many others, but it is an exercise that strengthens the mind, just like exercise builds muscle. I would like to introduce some of the ways ancients viewed matter, to see if others can work with those ideas and come up with something, because I am not getting ahead.

Do you want a few principles to start with?

I kind of doubt that a thread discussing how the ancient's viewed matter would be of any particular interest to myself personally gerhard, but if you feel that maybe someone else would enjoy this give it a shot.

[gerhard]

^^^gerhand, glad to see you appreciate the creative thought process. Many are offended by it, but great minds see the beauty, in it. I would love for you to start a thread, in regards to matter.

Thanks! I think alternative theories may be the place, but I want to give it thought first, to see what approach might be best.

[austin944]

Ronjanec, in regards to my Einstein ambiguity statement. Einstein, stating that time is "the movement of a clock", gives me the impression that....one, time is objective because a clock is a actual object; two, time is subjective by the fact that it is just a movement on the clock and doesn't exist; three, Einstein uses time to establish the theory of relativity, time of course doesn't exist, but is a merely a tool, but the tool is linear, which could give one a invalid analysis.

Perhaps it's useful to distinguish between the objective existence of the clock, and the physical laws which determine the movement of the clock (e.g. how fast the clock runs relative to other clocks). I think Einstein was really talking about the latter and not the former.

[ronjanec]

Ronjanec, in regards to my Einstein ambiguity statement. Einstein, stating that time is "the movement of a clock", gives me the impression that....one, time is objective because a clock is a actual object; two, time is subjective by the fact that it is just a movement on the clock and doesn't exist; three, Einstein uses time to establish the theory of relativity, time of course doesn't exist, but is a merely a tool, but the tool is linear, which could give one a invalid analysis.

Perhaps it's useful to distinguish between the objective existence of the clock, and the physical laws which determine the movement of the clock (e.g. how fast the clock runs relative to other clocks). I think Einstein was really talking about the latter and not the former.

austin,

When you talk about "the physical laws which determine the movement of a clock", can I ask you in what specific way could they do this? Are you talking specifically about an atomic clock here?

[austin944]

When you talk about "the physical laws which determine the movement of a clock", can I ask you in what specific way could they do this? Are you talking specifically about an atomic clock here?

Yes, I am talking about all clocks -- atomic, analog, and digital. There was an experiment performed with atomic clocks which demonstrated that their time-keeping conformed with the theory of relativity:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

I am not an expert on relativity, so unfortunately I can't answer your first question.

[ronjanec]

When you talk about "the physical laws which determine the movement of a clock", can I ask you in what specific way could they do this? Are you talking specifically about an atomic clock here?

Yes, I am talking about all clocks -- atomic, analog, and digital. There was an experiment performed with atomic clocks which demonstrated that their time-keeping conformed with the theory of relativity:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... irtim.html

I am not an expert on relativity, so unfortunately I can't answer your first question.

Yes, I am familar with the experiment. One particular thing slowed down during the course of an experiment(an atomic clock): Another completely different thing was also said to have slowed down during the course of the same experiment(time): Do you see anything wrong with this picture Austin?

I will give you a hint as to where I am going with this: If I slow down, does that mean that Austin would "also" slow down?

[Percarus]

ronjanec wrote: Greg, Sometimes it sounds like we may be on the same page using different terminology: You do understand that I am not saying that time does not exist right? I am actually trying to say that time does not exist as an object.

It seems to me pretty much self-explanatory to me and I do not understand how this thread could have gone on for so darn long. You are basically relating time as a human construct, and that it does not pertain to anything outside the mind of humans. This goes to say that time is equivalent to a measurement, similar to breadth, height, length, weight, and width. But seeing time as merely a fabricated fourth dimension is still an agnostic notion. You are relying on faith based on the lack of physical evidence that is manifested in our senses. Equally on that notion is the concept of God, but the terminology of God in itself can be justifiable through evolutionary means towards the ultimate evolved supreme entity construct – a mathematically probable outcome.

We cannot identify space as an object, however we can measure the area encompassed by space through human physical measurement constructs (ie: Volume). However, what we are able to observe from space/voids is the effect it has on surrounding matter, that is, entropy of particles may be increased and physical distribution of forces is equilibrated – gravity still flows through space and in that very regard it may be termed as a fabric. Just like an artist’s canvas is the fabric for the paint, so is space the fabric of matter – therefore it is real and measurable.

Now, back to time... It is obvious time is not an objective reality because its very element is based on a reference point for justification. But what if... What if indeed that time does exist through outside senses we cannot perceive (not just yet anyway). Our understanding of the macroscopic world can be still severely limited and the concept of unseen matter still eludes us severely. I would argue that, ronjanec, you are wrong, and it is erroneous to state time as not being an ‘object’, unless you mean to refer to us, humans, at this point in time – get the pun? :-D

PS: I could not read all 11 thread pages but I did read about 6, I hope I did not miss anything major.

[ronjanec]

I think you did a pretty good job of pointing out what I was basically trying to say here Pecarus.

Could time still exist independent of what I was trying to say here? Well yes, I guess that could be possible, but I cannot personally see any evidence or logical reason why this could in fact be possible or true.

If time did really exist this way, I would have to believe that there would again be some kind of evidence existing somewhere in the universe that someone could point to right?(By the way, I am pretty certain that no one has looked for this more than myself, again to no avail. Or thought about in great detail questions like "what could time possibly be made of?" if this was in fact true)

Why is the thread still going on? This has kind of turned into a 'meaning of time' thread, and many people are talking about a number of different things in regards to time here. What did you think about the very recent atomic clock discussion?

[Percarus]

DEFINING TIME IF MATERIAL
***********************

If time was a material element how could it be defined? I plan on explaining time as a material object. Let’s consider a construct of time by first analysing how it is visualised. Time is reasoned and visualised through our human brain does that mean to say it is real? Well, the feeling of touch is real (we can feel), we can smell, we can hear, we can taste, and we can see – these elements warrant the existence of material objects within our existence. But let’s postulate that a sixth sense occurs, the instinctual perception of time. I believe humans possess this sixth sense and the way it operates is through a spatial arrangement of neurons within our very own minds.

Various individuals have a knack of telling how much time has elapsed without resorting to counting seconds within their minds. I will give you an example that started happening late last year to me and for the first few months of 2012 this year. Every time I looked at the clock I would turn just in time that 11:11am, or 11:11pm surfaced on the clock, this every day and for months. Myths suggest that such incidences occur when an angel or spirit is trying to reach you; I dismissed it as nothing but a mental conditioning process that took place in my time in order to console any hidden fears I had within me. It did not stop there, just when I became used to such twice daily occurrences then it became worse, for 2.5 months straight for 95% of the time (every time I looked at any clock unintentionally) I would see re-occurring patterns of numbers, ie: 2:22, 2:32, 2:42, 3:43, 6:06 and etc… This is only a one in ten chance of happening but the fact that it happened continuously over several months bore credence that indeed my brain habitually conditioned itself to monitor time through processes of its own, although not on a voluntary basis but more of an instinctual.

Such occurrences do not occur to me anymore, and it was quite a bizarre period in my life as I did a lot of research around the topic. But regardless, there is proof that the concept of time can be grasped through our instinctual senses, many individuals have experienced such instances. Now, with the element of time being a constructive ensemble within our mind then how do we define it? Obviously it is a manifestation based on the arrangement of matter. Our brain archives moments in time through materialistic processes and stores each moment like an ‘engram’. Therefore time can be re-winded by checking our neuron-based archives and moments experienced in the past can be re-lived – this as far as human capability goes in turning back time.

Consider the visualisation of time like a VCR (video cassette recorder, for those that don’t know) tape. Time is encapsulated through a snapshot in a magnetic tape and it is a continuous process that captures each frame in time. At any point we can ‘pause’ the tape, re-wind it, and re-play time at a point of our convenience. That is to say that time itself needs a ‘canvas’ to archive such moments in time and our brain achieves this by engraving time in matter (our brain cells and dendrite pathways) in a process that allows us to re-live those captured moments when we deem suitable. To think of this concept of time on a macro scale we would have to assume that the very fabric of time is matter or the very distortion of space. Maybe our reality is like the tape filament in the VCR and in order to play back time something outside of the bounds of this universe is able to play back the tape through forces unknown to us.

Let’s use the archaeological or geological interpretation… Scientists, when studying the history of time examine newfound evidence and ruins of the past and based on logical postulations given the surroundings and all available knowledge we are then able to make accurate constructs of our past. Such would be a possibility on the interpretation of time travel, that is, based on the arrangement of molecules, given greater ‘reason’, and given the capacity to bring forth and re-arrange the very fabric of space it may indeed be possible to re-arrange time. In other words, every passing moment, and every action in the universe is recorded in the ripples of the fabric of space and this may be either be traceable through detective-like investigative work or maybe just re-winded through some unknown means like the very VCR tape we take for granted (make sure you have BIC ballpoint pen if attempting to wind time in case it goes wrong though).

Ok, the very notion that is important here is that visualisation of time is a ‘sixth’ sense, and if we can perceive it therefore it must be real, hence it is. Time can be further re-defined through virtual worlds within virtual worlds, and hence time can be given subjective meaning in an objective context. Now, what would happen if entropy was reduced to zero and temperature itself was reduced to absolute zero, zero Kelvins? I would argue that time would cease to exist and hence reality as we know would freeze indefinitely (maybe). However, the very fabric of space may be distorted in such a manner that would affect and ripple across other universes therefore an imprint of time would still be ever-so present on the greater scale. Time is physical, real, and very much an object, more-often than not a collective organism of objects and hence an amalgamation of the very constituents of space – it is interconnected to everything we know and should we choose to examine just a portion then we shall only obtain a certain fragment of time.

Ummm… Ok, this was my go in defining time in a gist – I just want to see this thread finished. LOL

[moranity]

its well known that removal of external stimuli destroys a person's sense of time, sensory deprivation experiments, torture techniques etc etc all show overwelming evidence that we need external infuences to maintain a sense of time.
therefore there is no internal mental clock, there may well be body clocks, but we are not mentally in touch with them, and they may well be calibrated by external events.
for me conciousness exists in an eternal moment, it only knows of change by observing the tracks of the past left in present memory. continuation of the past to the present(time) only exists by the use of memory. we all can think of many examples of experiences where we would think that no time had passed when it had.
the time sense is just the ability to guess how much time has passed by comparing the amount of change that occured through the use of memory