Time does not exist it's only a perception of our minds trying to understand and cope with us shifting or sliding into new realities, every time we make decisions we are shifted into a new different parallel universe "reality". Based on our decisions these new realities or universes are created to conform to our new physical realities ,which we then perceived as" time passage,". an others words Every time we make a decision in our daily life's, we create our new reality, these different new realities or "universe" are perceived as time passage, every time a decision is made we leave are old physical universe or reality behind, therefore every decision or event" shift us into a new reality,which we all perceive as time passing by.
QUOTE (timemind+Nov 2 2007, 08:02 AM)
Time does not exist it's only a perception of our minds trying to understand and cope with us shifting or sliding into new realities, every time we make decisions we are shifted into a new different parallel universe "reality". Based on our decisions these new realities or universes are created to conform to our new physical realities ,which we then perceived as" time passage,". an others words Every time we make a decision in our daily life's, we create our new reality, these different new realities or "universe" are perceived as time passage, every time a decision is made we leave are old physical universe or reality behind, therefore every decision or event" shift us into a new reality,which we all perceive as time passing by.
You're talking about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics right? This is another area in which popular science has sold the theory somewhat short. Many worlds isn't anything to do with human decision making, but quantum probabilities.
Suppose you have an electron in the state |z up> + |z down> (with correct normalisation), and you want to measure it's z component of spin. You could find it's spin up or spin down with an equal probability of each. The most common interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen interpretation) is that the probabilities act like an average, so if you measure the spin of the electron many times you'll find equal instances of up and down.
In many worlds, if you measure the electrons spin and it's down, in an alternate reality the alternate you measures it as up. If you have a photon which can have 3 spin_z states -1, 0 and 1 there would be 3 realities etc.
Many worlds gets really interesting when you think about systems like atoms where there are infinitely many possible states.
You're talking about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics right? This is another area in which popular science has sold the theory somewhat short. Many worlds isn't anything to do with human decision making, but quantum probabilities.
Suppose you have an electron in the state |z up> + |z down> (with correct normalisation), and you want to measure it's z component of spin. You could find it's spin up or spin down with an equal probability of each. The most common interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen interpretation) is that the probabilities act like an average, so if you measure the spin of the electron many times you'll find equal instances of up and down.
In many worlds, if you measure the electrons spin and it's down, in an alternate reality the alternate you measures it as up. If you have a photon which can have 3 spin_z states -1, 0 and 1 there would be 3 realities etc.
Many worlds gets really interesting when you think about systems like atoms where there are infinitely many possible states.
PS Time certainly does exist, whether our perception of it is how it really is or not is debatable. 
Hi All,
"T=(Fv)/E=SA=a/Mc2
THOUGHTS=(FREQUENCIES /vibrations/ENERGY=SUBATOMIC PARTICLES=atoms/MATTER=physical world
You can dogmatically adhere to such a concept, but it is of no practical or conceptual value. It provides no predictions, no new explanations, and no insight either scientifically nor philosophically. In you method, time appears to flow just as it would if it were real. I could just as easily say that God made the world for me, and beyond what I sense there is no reality.
Time consists of an ordering of before and after. That's as far as we can go with it. Even that can get tricky with relativity.
My senses tell me that I am in a single reality moving from past to future. What scientific data can you provide to dispute that sense data?
Read Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy". What can we know? What exists? What is reality?
http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html
Check out his wikipedia page.
QUOTE (timemind+)
Time does not exist it's only a perception of our minds trying to understand and cope with us shifting or sliding into new realities, every time we make decisions we are shifted into a new different parallel universe "reality".
Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are virtually in the one place and exist in the same instant of time.
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it. OK... there is radioactivity which is related to the weak force and there is the strong force but both of these occur on a different scale of the Universe and are unstable at long range. It is very possible that both are manefestations of a deeper level of electromagnetism and this association has been shown for the weak force and is highly suggestive of the strong force. The only other "force" is Gravity. I will note that Gravity and Electromagnetism both travel at the one speed and they both obey a similar law of attraction except that electromagnetism appears to be in a bipolar form while gravity and mass appear to be in a unipolar form.... Otherwise I would otherwise assume that they are derived from the one source of electromagnetism.
Clearly if we assume that all forces are mitigated by electromagnetism or some variant of it, including all the point to point forces like those between colliding billiard balls, then there is nothing happening at all when photons (virtual or real) are not interacting. The number and rate of these "events" is a measure of the activity of everything we see touch and experience. Of course for photons when they are not interacting they are in a quantum state and cannot be remotely observed. We can know that they are there but unless you actually "catch" them in a detector you can't predict where any of them are and as far as we know they may not really be there at all.
These quanta can't "leak" energy or alter in anyway whatsoever. They simply "spread" and they "interfere" but usually this activity is at a very subtle level. The "action" and the "dynamics" is entirely in the interaction between particles and these photons. This is a true definition of a quanta. A photon can cross the entire Universe without there being any change in its nature at all. We seem to notice that these unobserved photons travel as waves if we take a "sample" of them as particles. They interact apparently only as particles and only locally with other particles (point to point)... or so it would seem. One way to classify time would intuitively be to omit all the short range phenomena such as the weak and strong force and to include gravity and the presence of mass with electromagnetism and then say that these photon exchange events which are quantized and unobserved are the heartbeat of time itself. Without any electromagnetic interactions at all there are no forces and no actions due to them. without these actions and reactions we can't build working clocks to keep the time. Imagine a clock where nothing changed at all.then the time on the dial would not progress. Now assume that a single photon exchanged a force between two sections inside that clock ... suddenly we have Newton's Laws beginning to act. It will take a lot more than just one photon to make a clock "tick"... it will take a vast number of interactions throughout the entire body of that clock to create a smooth progress of events, even to hold the clock together, such that these forces can be recorded by the hands on that clock and cause it to move.
This also applies to everything we do and see. If the forces between the atomic particles in the Sun were to disappear then it will not necessarily implode, it will do nothing since there is no mass either if there are no interactions of attraction or repulsion. The particles making up the Universe would begin to behave like the photons themselves and simply pass through each other without forces. If all the photons remain uninteracting and "frozen in time and space" by their light speed motion, that is all that remains is the motion of all those photons and now those particles all traveling in straight lines since there are no longer any gravity or forces anywhere. Naturally this never happens but it is instructive to think about it if it did happen.... A whole lot of uninteracting photons. This just about describes the properties of neutrinos which can penetrate the heaviest Armour and pass through anything as if it was light through a pane of clear glass. Yet neutrinos are matter and photons are light the subtle difference alters the dynamics completely.
So my bet is these connections between source and sinks of single photons "joining" points in spacetime together in the frame of the photons "instantly" leads to our world of space and waves and particularly of time.
Since photons are massless they cannot experience time since they are compelled to travel at only the speed of light. Logically if a photon is able to take on mass then it will experience time. It can do this by becoming a particle and enter into a particle creation event. A particle is simply a special configuration of a photon in which it is forced by some property of space to travel repeatedly through the same volume of space (like in a loop) thereby confining it to a locality in space. All particles that exhibit this property appear to have some mass.
We see that mass is indeed just a special confined state for light so gravity which is an extension of mass comes directly from this electromagnetism and are stresses in spacetime in which the external observer sees these entities as accelerating. The prime tenant of gravity is that acceleration due to gravitation is identical in every respect to acceleration due to inertial forces. This is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. What is wrong with this picture?? The anomaly with light is that it falls along the same path as matter traveling near the speed of light, even though it has no mass whatsoever. This once again betrays the true nature of gravity and mass as being electromagnetic in origin. It is highly suggestive that gravity has all of its origins in electromagnetism.
The remaining forces of electromagnetism come from the evanescent field and these are termed "virtual photons" which are photons that remain attached and at overall at rest relative to their sources in the "near field". These result in the forces between wires and magnets and the forces in electromagnetic machines.... Our technology.
But time seems to be the rate of events and these events are light force exchanges. Photons are after all the exchange particles of our Universe... It seems natural to associate these with time or at least the rate of time. I doubt if we can measure the different rates of time if these photon or even neutrino fluxes changed over time in any deep way. Changes in flux may only result in slight "disturbances" that cannot be recorded because what is it we can use to determine any irregularities but time itself.
Time seems to still progress even in the dark so exchanges are still occurring near absolute zero and metals where photons are still undergoing changes of state. I subscribe to Cramer's Event Driven Universe and we still not found any reliable way to count the absolute number of events anywhere in space in order to "keep things together".
However I have run out of time now and I must get some shut eye... See ya all!
Cheers
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it. OK... there is radioactivity which is related to the weak force and there is the strong force but both of these occur on a different scale of the Universe and are unstable at long range. It is very possible that both are manefestations of a deeper level of electromagnetism and this association has been shown for the weak force and is highly suggestive of the strong force. The only other "force" is Gravity. I will note that Gravity and Electromagnetism both travel at the one speed and they both obey a similar law of attraction except that electromagnetism appears to be in a bipolar form while gravity and mass appear to be in a unipolar form.... Otherwise I would otherwise assume that they are derived from the one source of electromagnetism.
Clearly if we assume that all forces are mitigated by electromagnetism or some variant of it, including all the point to point forces like those between colliding billiard balls, then there is nothing happening at all when photons (virtual or real) are not interacting. The number and rate of these "events" is a measure of the activity of everything we see touch and experience. Of course for photons when they are not interacting they are in a quantum state and cannot be remotely observed. We can know that they are there but unless you actually "catch" them in a detector you can't predict where any of them are and as far as we know they may not really be there at all.
These quanta can't "leak" energy or alter in anyway whatsoever. They simply "spread" and they "interfere" but usually this activity is at a very subtle level. The "action" and the "dynamics" is entirely in the interaction between particles and these photons. This is a true definition of a quanta. A photon can cross the entire Universe without there being any change in its nature at all. We seem to notice that these unobserved photons travel as waves if we take a "sample" of them as particles. They interact apparently only as particles and only locally with other particles (point to point)... or so it would seem. One way to classify time would intuitively be to omit all the short range phenomena such as the weak and strong force and to include gravity and the presence of mass with electromagnetism and then say that these photon exchange events which are quantized and unobserved are the heartbeat of time itself. Without any electromagnetic interactions at all there are no forces and no actions due to them. without these actions and reactions we can't build working clocks to keep the time. Imagine a clock where nothing changed at all.then the time on the dial would not progress. Now assume that a single photon exchanged a force between two sections inside that clock ... suddenly we have Newton's Laws beginning to act. It will take a lot more than just one photon to make a clock "tick"... it will take a vast number of interactions throughout the entire body of that clock to create a smooth progress of events, even to hold the clock together, such that these forces can be recorded by the hands on that clock and cause it to move.
This also applies to everything we do and see. If the forces between the atomic particles in the Sun were to disappear then it will not necessarily implode, it will do nothing since there is no mass either if there are no interactions of attraction or repulsion. The particles making up the Universe would begin to behave like the photons themselves and simply pass through each other without forces. If all the photons remain uninteracting and "frozen in time and space" by their light speed motion, that is all that remains is the motion of all those photons and now those particles all traveling in straight lines since there are no longer any gravity or forces anywhere. Naturally this never happens but it is instructive to think about it if it did happen.... A whole lot of uninteracting photons. This just about describes the properties of neutrinos which can penetrate the heaviest Armour and pass through anything as if it was light through a pane of clear glass. Yet neutrinos are matter and photons are light the subtle difference alters the dynamics completely.
So my bet is these connections between source and sinks of single photons "joining" points in spacetime together in the frame of the photons "instantly" leads to our world of space and waves and particularly of time.
Since photons are massless they cannot experience time since they are compelled to travel at only the speed of light. Logically if a photon is able to take on mass then it will experience time. It can do this by becoming a particle and enter into a particle creation event. A particle is simply a special configuration of a photon in which it is forced by some property of space to travel repeatedly through the same volume of space (like in a loop) thereby confining it to a locality in space. All particles that exhibit this property appear to have some mass.
We see that mass is indeed just a special confined state for light so gravity which is an extension of mass comes directly from this electromagnetism and are stresses in spacetime in which the external observer sees these entities as accelerating. The prime tenant of gravity is that acceleration due to gravitation is identical in every respect to acceleration due to inertial forces. This is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. What is wrong with this picture?? The anomaly with light is that it falls along the same path as matter traveling near the speed of light, even though it has no mass whatsoever. This once again betrays the true nature of gravity and mass as being electromagnetic in origin. It is highly suggestive that gravity has all of its origins in electromagnetism.
The remaining forces of electromagnetism come from the evanescent field and these are termed "virtual photons" which are photons that remain attached and at overall at rest relative to their sources in the "near field". These result in the forces between wires and magnets and the forces in electromagnetic machines.... Our technology.
But time seems to be the rate of events and these events are light force exchanges. Photons are after all the exchange particles of our Universe... It seems natural to associate these with time or at least the rate of time. I doubt if we can measure the different rates of time if these photon or even neutrino fluxes changed over time in any deep way. Changes in flux may only result in slight "disturbances" that cannot be recorded because what is it we can use to determine any irregularities but time itself.
Time seems to still progress even in the dark so exchanges are still occurring near absolute zero and metals where photons are still undergoing changes of state. I subscribe to Cramer's Event Driven Universe and we still not found any reliable way to count the absolute number of events anywhere in space in order to "keep things together".
However I have run out of time now and I must get some shut eye... See ya all!
Cheers
Atoms have orbiting electrons. These electrons cause eclipses between atoms. The eclipses do not block light, but block the electrical fields as per Gauss's law. The atoms are not neutral during the very brief eclipses, and net attractions occur between atoms. The force can be calculated using Coulomb's law, it is equal to the gravitational force. Gravity is therefore electromagnetic. The Good Elf is correct.
To the gentleman below my comment, I believe there is a correlation between quantum probabilities human decision making "consciousness" and other worlds ,this other world exist solely for the purpose of our decision making process e.g free will when making a decision quantum probability comes into play to give out the outcome of our decisions; i believe this to be true; when this happens the outcome "event" we are then automatically shifted into a new world; where based on your decision that new "reality" is made to conform with your decision which converts into a us seeing a new reality.
I believe that this is the essence of what we perceive as time, what we feel as time passage, another example move your right hand quantum probability comes into play; move your left hand quantum probability also comes into play, the world around you changes; this change is a new world ,a new world reality where your right hand and left hand have moved, this new physical world reality has to conform to your decision making process or daily new events happening all around us every day. This shifting in and out of new realities "WORLDS" feels to us as "time passage" this is the only way our minds can comprehend these new realities..
I believe that this is the essence of what we perceive as time, what we feel as time passage, another example move your right hand quantum probability comes into play; move your left hand quantum probability also comes into play, the world around you changes; this change is a new world ,a new world reality where your right hand and left hand have moved, this new physical world reality has to conform to your decision making process or daily new events happening all around us every day. This shifting in and out of new realities "WORLDS" feels to us as "time passage" this is the only way our minds can comprehend these new realities..
"T=(Fv)/E=SA=a/Mc2
THOUGHTS=(FREQUENCIES /vibrations/ENERGY=SUBATOMIC PARTICLES=atoms/MATTER=physical world
QUOTE (timemind+Nov 2 2007, 11:14 PM)
To the gentleman below my comment, I believe there is a correlation between quantum probabilities human decision making "consciousness" and other worlds ,this other world exist solely for the purpose of our decision making process e.g free will when making a decision quantum probability comes into play to give out the outcome of our decisions; i believe this to be true; when this happens the outcome "event" we are then automatically shifted into a new world; where based on your decision that new "reality" is made to conform with your decision which converts into a us seeing a new reality.
I believe that this is the essence of what we perceive as time, what we feel as time passage, another example move your right hand quantum probability comes into play; move your left hand quantum probability also comes into play, the world around you changes; this change is a new world ,a new world reality where your right hand and left hand have moved, this new physical world reality has to conform to your decision making process or daily new events happening all around us every day. This shifting in and out of new realities "WORLDS" feels to us as "time passage" this is the only way our minds can comprehend these new realities..
Is this directed at me? You can believe what you like, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
Wikipedia has quite a good article on many worlds. I suggest you read it.
I believe that this is the essence of what we perceive as time, what we feel as time passage, another example move your right hand quantum probability comes into play; move your left hand quantum probability also comes into play, the world around you changes; this change is a new world ,a new world reality where your right hand and left hand have moved, this new physical world reality has to conform to your decision making process or daily new events happening all around us every day. This shifting in and out of new realities "WORLDS" feels to us as "time passage" this is the only way our minds can comprehend these new realities..
Is this directed at me? You can believe what you like, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.
Wikipedia has quite a good article on many worlds. I suggest you read it.
"I guess one can look at science like a religion, One can believe what one wishes to believe until pr oven wrong by science and technology."
This does not make you any less wrong like you said, there are countless theories and we could debate until infinity; there is no proof of you being wrong or right the same for myself, until science and technology develops further and proofs what is right and factual. I will see the article which you are recommending thank you.
Alexander E.
This does not make you any less wrong like you said, there are countless theories and we could debate until infinity; there is no proof of you being wrong or right the same for myself, until science and technology develops further and proofs what is right and factual. I will see the article which you are recommending thank you.
Alexander E.
I agree Time doesnt exist instead we have Ime and Nows that exists in Ime!
QUOTE (timemind+Nov 2 2007, 08:02 AM)
Time does not exist it's only a perception of our minds trying to understand and cope with us shifting or sliding into new realities, every time we make decisions we are shifted into a new different parallel universe "reality". Based on our decisions these new realities or universes are created to conform to our new physical realities ,which we then perceived as" time passage,". an others words Every time we make a decision in our daily life's, we create our new reality, these different new realities or "universe" are perceived as time passage, every time a decision is made we leave are old physical universe or reality behind, therefore every decision or event" shift us into a new reality,which we all perceive as time passing by.
time exist when we measure it
time is duration of events
with clocks we measure duration and numerical order of events that run into a-temporal space
time exist when we measure it
time is duration of events
with clocks we measure duration and numerical order of events that run into a-temporal space
How comes this Amrit fellow is only on minus 37?, can't wait to neg in the justice zone.
QUOTE
Time does not exist it's only a perception of our minds trying to understand and cope with us shifting or sliding into new realities
You can dogmatically adhere to such a concept, but it is of no practical or conceptual value. It provides no predictions, no new explanations, and no insight either scientifically nor philosophically. In you method, time appears to flow just as it would if it were real. I could just as easily say that God made the world for me, and beyond what I sense there is no reality.
Time consists of an ordering of before and after. That's as far as we can go with it. Even that can get tricky with relativity.
My senses tell me that I am in a single reality moving from past to future. What scientific data can you provide to dispute that sense data?
Read Bertrand Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy". What can we know? What exists? What is reality?
http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html
Check out his wikipedia page.
QUOTE (timemind+Nov 2 2007, 11:14 PM)
This shifting in and out of new realities "WORLDS" feels to us as "time passage" this is the only way our minds can comprehend these new realities..
An godly like readjustment in the passage of time within the multivere that our present concients is in become a noticeable sign when wildlife cruises circular tandem obvious like stars around the head of a cartoon characher that's been waked in the head. There are readjustments too the multiverse time-line.
An godly like readjustment in the passage of time within the multivere that our present concients is in become a noticeable sign when wildlife cruises circular tandem obvious like stars around the head of a cartoon characher that's been waked in the head. There are readjustments too the multiverse time-line.
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 4 2007, 08:11 AM)
How comes this Amrit fellow is only on minus 37?, can't wait to neg in the justice zone.
sometime im wrong also
yes, time exist also when we do not measure it
events have duration without being measured
sure time get sense for a humans when we measure it
sometime im wrong also
yes, time exist also when we do not measure it
events have duration without being measured
sure time get sense for a humans when we measure it
Time is produced by electromagnetism. Here is the logic: The speed of light of a photon is given by Maxwell's equations, it is c; and it is equal to the inverse of both the square root of the permittivity of the vacuum constant multiplied by the permeability of free space constant. The velocity of mass can be written as c / n. Velocity of photons and mass have very similar equations, both are electromagnetic. Special relativity indicates that velocity can vary both distance and time. Distance, velocity and time are therefore created by electromagnetism.
hm perhaps i might agree time itself does not exist
States do exist but time itself may not exist.
A single photon in its own universe would not be affected by state changes.
Although i do wonder what causes some states of this universe to be likely to happen, in a certain order. Or in other words why isn't someone in in this universe putting one million euros on my bank account with a note enjoy it!
If there was this many world theory it would happen all the time somewhere..
Somehow in my reality and those who post here such states are not likely
But i do recommend reading the materials of Julian barbour
A scientist published his article also at edge org, about time. He also doesn't believe time does exist. Look for him up in google, as a newbie I'm not allowed to post URLs in here.
I'm guessing that the many world interpretation does really mean something else.
Light might be able to escape our reality in some experiments a little bit. But even in those experiments all the devices who where used exist in all these universes. Perhaps the past state includes all universes and we are the only solution for the current universe..
States do exist but time itself may not exist.
A single photon in its own universe would not be affected by state changes.
Although i do wonder what causes some states of this universe to be likely to happen, in a certain order. Or in other words why isn't someone in in this universe putting one million euros on my bank account with a note enjoy it!
If there was this many world theory it would happen all the time somewhere..
Somehow in my reality and those who post here such states are not likely
But i do recommend reading the materials of Julian barbour
A scientist published his article also at edge org, about time. He also doesn't believe time does exist. Look for him up in google, as a newbie I'm not allowed to post URLs in here.
I'm guessing that the many world interpretation does really mean something else.
Light might be able to escape our reality in some experiments a little bit. But even in those experiments all the devices who where used exist in all these universes. Perhaps the past state includes all universes and we are the only solution for the current universe..
Hi verftube, atomsview, amrit, Soultechs, meBigGuy, timemind, prometheus, magpies, Baby et al,
QUOTE (verftube+)
hm perhaps i might agree time itself does not exist
States do exist but time itself may not exist.
A single photon in its own universe would not be affected by state changes.
Although i do wonder what causes some states of this universe to be likely to happen, in a certain order. Or in other words why isn't someone in in this universe putting one million euros on my bank account with a note enjoy it!
If there was this many world theory it would happen all the time somewhere..
Somehow in my reality and those who post here such states are not likely
States do exist but time itself may not exist.
A single photon in its own universe would not be affected by state changes.
Although i do wonder what causes some states of this universe to be likely to happen, in a certain order. Or in other words why isn't someone in in this universe putting one million euros on my bank account with a note enjoy it!
If there was this many world theory it would happen all the time somewhere..
Somehow in my reality and those who post here such states are not likely
I would refer people to my previous post in this thread...
Good Elf's previous post in this thread
"Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference [... they are null geodesics]. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are [actually] in the one place [according to the prevailing geometry of spacetime] and exist in the same instant of time [of no duration].
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it." Photons are the exchange forces in our Universe and they have "infinite range" bound only by the confines of the Universe. Being quanta that are "frozen in time"... they cannot take part in any "dynamics"... since all dynamics take time (check it out for yourselves... no time no dynamics). This also defines what we know as the Principle of Least Action. This is the "Relativistic Arena" in which the Universe is playing out in with these exchange forces. The only way in which these quanta "break" with this rule and go outside this Universe is in particle to particle interactions in either the near filed or the far field. These geometries represent added dimensional characteristics that embody the "collapse of the quantum state".
In the near field this is dealing with "virtual photon" events and in the far field we are dealing with propagating photon events. The processes are otherwise identical and deal with effectively identical exchanges between identical and exchangeable particles. Do not think for one instant that "virtual photons" do not exist. Experience and experiment have shown that when dealing with so called "imaginary numbers" and so on are very real quantities indeed, none of our electronics could not work without a healthy use of "imaginary numbers". In Cramer's Event Driven Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory the advanced waves from the future are transacted with the retarded waves coming from the past in a "resonance". This is why photons can be emitted from one atom and be absorbed in another atom having the same "resonant characteristics". If no transaction exists then no energy transfer can or will occur. In the instant of emission of the quanta the transaction is made with the most suitably aligned couple of resonant states it can reach. Through the advanced field a one to one connection is established (as if these two entities were in the one place) and the event "tunnels" to the other site... the sink. It has no where else to go and because it is already transacted cannot be interfered with at all.
In our experience of time we know that the event "propagates" from that source to sink with varying degrees of inductive or radiative processes. The inductive process involves virtual photons and the fields are connected to their sources, in the radiative processes the events are connected to the sink through detached fields propagating through the space in "closed loops". This phenomenon we actually cannot directly observe but only infer from intermediate particle interactions. Each photon is a quantum event which cannot be interfered with unless even that interference with the event has already been transacted "in the future". There is nothing truly random in that process at all. What we can't know is what is the nature of the trigger of this otherwise random process because that would violate the energy constraints of our Universe and its "confines" defined by the speed of light and it's event horizon defined by the frame of reference of the observer. Nevertheless there are such processes and I can point you toward them in the literature if you want.
So without the progress of time there are no events to record. This is also true even of the individual events themselves (naturally!). Our experience of time comes from an experience of events and these events have individual histories since they can relate to individual transactions between separate atoms and separate systems, the forces that make things happen. These transactions can be light years apart and the actual distance is of no concern since space and time between source and sink in the rest frame of the transaction does not exist (they are null geodesics and all null geodesics are the same). Remember that Quantum Mechanics is a theory of statistics not a theory of forces and embodies no concept of "history" and is entirely time symmetric and so does not relate to actual physical laws but to simply the behavior of numbers and possibilities in an eventspace of all possibilities. In actual fact only some events actually happen.
Assuming you could experience the life of a photon, the events in our universe while they are in transit, are just beyond the photon's event horizon so they cannot be "observed" by the photon (the most degenerate horizon in which ∆T = 0 and ∆S = 0). Likewise for objects (fermion particles) in which time is still progressing and very high relative velocities are involved, many events lie outside of that observers event horizon and cannot interact with his perception of the Universe. This changes the balance of forces and histories involved. This results in a Rindler Horizon. Contrary to Quantum Theory dictates, individual events do have a history. That is why nobody is about to put a large deposit into your bank account. It is not random it is event driven and events have history. I would not wait around for some dupe to do anything for which you have not transacted and moreover the Universe does not make "banking errors"... or if it does it withdraws them in a very short time canceling your instantaneous "credits" and reversing any "interest" you may have accrued.
In the Universe there are "no free lunches". So "no time" exists and so does "time" exist as the ensemble of events local to the observer.
Cheers
Good Elf's previous post in this thread
"Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference [... they are null geodesics]. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are [actually] in the one place [according to the prevailing geometry of spacetime] and exist in the same instant of time [of no duration].
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it." Photons are the exchange forces in our Universe and they have "infinite range" bound only by the confines of the Universe. Being quanta that are "frozen in time"... they cannot take part in any "dynamics"... since all dynamics take time (check it out for yourselves... no time no dynamics). This also defines what we know as the Principle of Least Action. This is the "Relativistic Arena" in which the Universe is playing out in with these exchange forces. The only way in which these quanta "break" with this rule and go outside this Universe is in particle to particle interactions in either the near filed or the far field. These geometries represent added dimensional characteristics that embody the "collapse of the quantum state".
In the near field this is dealing with "virtual photon" events and in the far field we are dealing with propagating photon events. The processes are otherwise identical and deal with effectively identical exchanges between identical and exchangeable particles. Do not think for one instant that "virtual photons" do not exist. Experience and experiment have shown that when dealing with so called "imaginary numbers" and so on are very real quantities indeed, none of our electronics could not work without a healthy use of "imaginary numbers". In Cramer's Event Driven Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory the advanced waves from the future are transacted with the retarded waves coming from the past in a "resonance". This is why photons can be emitted from one atom and be absorbed in another atom having the same "resonant characteristics". If no transaction exists then no energy transfer can or will occur. In the instant of emission of the quanta the transaction is made with the most suitably aligned couple of resonant states it can reach. Through the advanced field a one to one connection is established (as if these two entities were in the one place) and the event "tunnels" to the other site... the sink. It has no where else to go and because it is already transacted cannot be interfered with at all.
In our experience of time we know that the event "propagates" from that source to sink with varying degrees of inductive or radiative processes. The inductive process involves virtual photons and the fields are connected to their sources, in the radiative processes the events are connected to the sink through detached fields propagating through the space in "closed loops". This phenomenon we actually cannot directly observe but only infer from intermediate particle interactions. Each photon is a quantum event which cannot be interfered with unless even that interference with the event has already been transacted "in the future". There is nothing truly random in that process at all. What we can't know is what is the nature of the trigger of this otherwise random process because that would violate the energy constraints of our Universe and its "confines" defined by the speed of light and it's event horizon defined by the frame of reference of the observer. Nevertheless there are such processes and I can point you toward them in the literature if you want.
So without the progress of time there are no events to record. This is also true even of the individual events themselves (naturally!). Our experience of time comes from an experience of events and these events have individual histories since they can relate to individual transactions between separate atoms and separate systems, the forces that make things happen. These transactions can be light years apart and the actual distance is of no concern since space and time between source and sink in the rest frame of the transaction does not exist (they are null geodesics and all null geodesics are the same). Remember that Quantum Mechanics is a theory of statistics not a theory of forces and embodies no concept of "history" and is entirely time symmetric and so does not relate to actual physical laws but to simply the behavior of numbers and possibilities in an eventspace of all possibilities. In actual fact only some events actually happen.
Assuming you could experience the life of a photon, the events in our universe while they are in transit, are just beyond the photon's event horizon so they cannot be "observed" by the photon (the most degenerate horizon in which ∆T = 0 and ∆S = 0). Likewise for objects (fermion particles) in which time is still progressing and very high relative velocities are involved, many events lie outside of that observers event horizon and cannot interact with his perception of the Universe. This changes the balance of forces and histories involved. This results in a Rindler Horizon. Contrary to Quantum Theory dictates, individual events do have a history. That is why nobody is about to put a large deposit into your bank account. It is not random it is event driven and events have history. I would not wait around for some dupe to do anything for which you have not transacted and moreover the Universe does not make "banking errors"... or if it does it withdraws them in a very short time canceling your instantaneous "credits" and reversing any "interest" you may have accrued.
In the Universe there are "no free lunches". So "no time" exists and so does "time" exist as the ensemble of events local to the observer.
Cheers
good elf-but how could to place "a point" to understand that there in that point( spacetime,occured a passage of time,alredy that various observers will see that point of spacetime,as others instants.because there is not something in absolute
rest to measure the initial or final of tick of time.
rest to measure the initial or final of tick of time.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 9 2007, 02:20 AM)
Hi verftube, atomsview, amrit, Soultechs, meBigGuy, timemind, prometheus, magpies, Baby et al,
QUOTE (verftube+)
hm perhaps i might agree time itself does not exist
States do exist but time itself may not exist.
A single photon in its own universe would not be affected by state changes.
Although i do wonder what causes some states of this universe to be likely to happen, in a certain order. Or in other words why isn't someone in in this universe putting one million euros on my bank account with a note enjoy it!
If there was this many world theory it would happen all the time somewhere..
Somehow in my reality and those who post here such states are not likely
generally, i think your hypothesis needs some work
if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
States do exist but time itself may not exist.
A single photon in its own universe would not be affected by state changes.
Although i do wonder what causes some states of this universe to be likely to happen, in a certain order. Or in other words why isn't someone in in this universe putting one million euros on my bank account with a note enjoy it!
If there was this many world theory it would happen all the time somewhere..
Somehow in my reality and those who post here such states are not likely
I would refer people to my previous post in this thread...
Good Elf's previous post in this thread
"Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference [... they are null geodesics]. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are [actually] in the one place [according to the prevailing geometry of spacetime] and exist in the same instant of time [of no duration].
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it." Photons are the exchange forces in our Universe and they have "infinite range" bound only by the confines of the Universe. Being quanta that are "frozen in time"... they cannot take part in any "dynamics"... since all dynamics take time (check it out for yourselves... no time no dynamics). This also defines what we know as the Principle of Least Action. This is the "Relativistic Arena" in which the Universe is playing out in with these exchange forces. The only way in which these quanta "break" with this rule and go outside this Universe is in particle to particle interactions in either the near filed or the far field. These geometries represent added dimensional characteristics that embody the "collapse of the quantum state".
In the near field this is dealing with "virtual photon" events and in the far field we are dealing with propagating photon events. The processes are otherwise identical and deal with effectively identical exchanges between identical and exchangeable particles. Do not think for one instant that "virtual photons" do not exist. Experience and experiment have shown that when dealing with so called "imaginary numbers" and so on are very real quantities indeed, none of our electronics could not work without a healthy use of "imaginary numbers". In Cramer's Event Driven Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory the advanced waves from the future are transacted with the retarded waves coming from the past in a "resonance". This is why photons can be emitted from one atom and be absorbed in another atom having the same "resonant characteristics". If no transaction exists then no energy transfer can or will occur. In the instant of emission of the quanta the transaction is made with the most suitably aligned couple of resonant states it can reach. Through the advanced field a one to one connection is established (as if these two entities were in the one place) and the event "tunnels" to the other site... the sink. It has no where else to go and because it is already transacted cannot be interfered with at all.
In our experience of time we know that the event "propagates" from that source to sink with varying degrees of inductive or radiative processes. The inductive process involves virtual photons and the fields are connected to their sources, in the radiative processes the events are connected to the sink through detached fields propagating through the space in "closed loops". This phenomenon we actually cannot directly observe but only infer from intermediate particle interactions. Each photon is a quantum event which cannot be interfered with unless even that interference with the event has already been transacted "in the future". There is nothing truly random in that process at all. What we can't know is what is the nature of the trigger of this otherwise random process because that would violate the energy constraints of our Universe and its "confines" defined by the speed of light and it's event horizon defined by the frame of reference of the observer. Nevertheless there are such processes and I can point you toward them in the literature if you want.
So without the progress of time there are no events to record. This is also true even of the individual events themselves (naturally!). Our experience of time comes from an experience of events and these events have individual histories since they can relate to individual transactions between separate atoms and separate systems, the forces that make things happen. These transactions can be light years apart and the actual distance is of no concern since space and time between source and sink in the rest frame of the transaction does not exist (they are null geodesics and all null geodesics are the same). Remember that Quantum Mechanics is a theory of statistics not a theory of forces and embodies no concept of "history" and is entirely time symmetric and so does not relate to actual physical laws but to simply the behavior of numbers and possibilities in an eventspace of all possibilities. In actual fact only some events actually happen.
Assuming you could experience the life of a photon, the events in our universe while they are in transit, are just beyond the photon's event horizon so they cannot be "observed" by the photon (the most degenerate horizon in which ∆T = 0 and ∆S = 0). Likewise for objects (fermion particles) in which time is still progressing and very high relative velocities are involved, many events lie outside of that observers event horizon and cannot interact with his perception of the Universe. This changes the balance of forces and histories involved. This results in a Rindler Horizon. Contrary to Quantum Theory dictates, individual events do have a history. That is why nobody is about to put a large deposit into your bank account. It is not random it is event driven and events have history. I would not wait around for some dupe to do anything for which you have not transacted and moreover the Universe does not make "banking errors"... or if it does it withdraws them in a very short time canceling your instantaneous "credits" and reversing any "interest" you may have accrued.
In the Universe there are "no free lunches". So "no time" exists and so does "time" exist as the ensemble of events local to the observer.
Cheers
time do not exist as humans experience it
change run into space
and time is duration of change........easy but not to easy
Good Elf's previous post in this thread
"Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference [... they are null geodesics]. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are [actually] in the one place [according to the prevailing geometry of spacetime] and exist in the same instant of time [of no duration].
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it." Photons are the exchange forces in our Universe and they have "infinite range" bound only by the confines of the Universe. Being quanta that are "frozen in time"... they cannot take part in any "dynamics"... since all dynamics take time (check it out for yourselves... no time no dynamics). This also defines what we know as the Principle of Least Action. This is the "Relativistic Arena" in which the Universe is playing out in with these exchange forces. The only way in which these quanta "break" with this rule and go outside this Universe is in particle to particle interactions in either the near filed or the far field. These geometries represent added dimensional characteristics that embody the "collapse of the quantum state".
In the near field this is dealing with "virtual photon" events and in the far field we are dealing with propagating photon events. The processes are otherwise identical and deal with effectively identical exchanges between identical and exchangeable particles. Do not think for one instant that "virtual photons" do not exist. Experience and experiment have shown that when dealing with so called "imaginary numbers" and so on are very real quantities indeed, none of our electronics could not work without a healthy use of "imaginary numbers". In Cramer's Event Driven Interpretation of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory the advanced waves from the future are transacted with the retarded waves coming from the past in a "resonance". This is why photons can be emitted from one atom and be absorbed in another atom having the same "resonant characteristics". If no transaction exists then no energy transfer can or will occur. In the instant of emission of the quanta the transaction is made with the most suitably aligned couple of resonant states it can reach. Through the advanced field a one to one connection is established (as if these two entities were in the one place) and the event "tunnels" to the other site... the sink. It has no where else to go and because it is already transacted cannot be interfered with at all.
In our experience of time we know that the event "propagates" from that source to sink with varying degrees of inductive or radiative processes. The inductive process involves virtual photons and the fields are connected to their sources, in the radiative processes the events are connected to the sink through detached fields propagating through the space in "closed loops". This phenomenon we actually cannot directly observe but only infer from intermediate particle interactions. Each photon is a quantum event which cannot be interfered with unless even that interference with the event has already been transacted "in the future". There is nothing truly random in that process at all. What we can't know is what is the nature of the trigger of this otherwise random process because that would violate the energy constraints of our Universe and its "confines" defined by the speed of light and it's event horizon defined by the frame of reference of the observer. Nevertheless there are such processes and I can point you toward them in the literature if you want.
So without the progress of time there are no events to record. This is also true even of the individual events themselves (naturally!). Our experience of time comes from an experience of events and these events have individual histories since they can relate to individual transactions between separate atoms and separate systems, the forces that make things happen. These transactions can be light years apart and the actual distance is of no concern since space and time between source and sink in the rest frame of the transaction does not exist (they are null geodesics and all null geodesics are the same). Remember that Quantum Mechanics is a theory of statistics not a theory of forces and embodies no concept of "history" and is entirely time symmetric and so does not relate to actual physical laws but to simply the behavior of numbers and possibilities in an eventspace of all possibilities. In actual fact only some events actually happen.
Assuming you could experience the life of a photon, the events in our universe while they are in transit, are just beyond the photon's event horizon so they cannot be "observed" by the photon (the most degenerate horizon in which ∆T = 0 and ∆S = 0). Likewise for objects (fermion particles) in which time is still progressing and very high relative velocities are involved, many events lie outside of that observers event horizon and cannot interact with his perception of the Universe. This changes the balance of forces and histories involved. This results in a Rindler Horizon. Contrary to Quantum Theory dictates, individual events do have a history. That is why nobody is about to put a large deposit into your bank account. It is not random it is event driven and events have history. I would not wait around for some dupe to do anything for which you have not transacted and moreover the Universe does not make "banking errors"... or if it does it withdraws them in a very short time canceling your instantaneous "credits" and reversing any "interest" you may have accrued.
In the Universe there are "no free lunches". So "no time" exists and so does "time" exist as the ensemble of events local to the observer.
Cheers
time do not exist as humans experience it
change run into space
and time is duration of change........easy but not to easy
Time will always exist. Both before our creation and after. It is proven when you send one sibling of a twin into outer-space and upon their return you can see the difference that time has! Our reality of its duration may be different at certain places and certain moments but regardless, it never stops. Even when we do. You can say in very small places measured in this plank scale we can observe the nueronetworking of a brain and see how signals can be flashed before an event has happened and say that time is going backwards(which implies that time can stop) but this measurement of time is now being affected in the plank scale as well.
They say a dog can feel like it lived seven years in the same time we live our one. The reality of time exist for that dog but the measurement is different than our own. We can still say there are 60 minutes in a day, seven days a week and 12 months a year that we officially measure by the second with clocks. The reason this is our reality instead of another because the change in the seasons go along with our measurement of time. Its a wondrous thing really now that I even think of it like this because who knows the cause and affect of our solar system and universes compared to others on a collective whole and wondered if..... the characteristics of the emotions we display and behave in can somehow take affect of the emotional states or sense of times that other "PLACES" realize and experience.
I say this only because of the carbon molecules that do so much within us. these molecules operate on the plank scale or is it Planck?And the nucleotides within all matter that share some type of entangled electro-magnetic factor. What we think, we usually feel and who feels it, knows it! This is what I know, there are different realities in time. Sometimes we can take drugs and feel a different reality OF time, but not IN time! What could have felt like four hours was measured officially as ONE hour and so be it in "OUR REALITY ON EARTH". You will know what I mean when you don't pay your court fee's "ON TIME". These different realities of time that do exist on the sub-atomic and grand-nuclear levels(is that a word?, You know what Imean, the study of the very large) are spaces that are a part of cause and effect as any other when it comes to certain levels.(of space, big or small) Everything is made up of nucleotides,...remember! nucleotides are smaller than atoms. NOW, thanks to entanglement THEORIES, all the energy in all the space is connected, all the mass in all the space is connected, all the ENERGETIC MASS throughout TIME is....CONNECTED.
or maybe I'm just going down the wrong rabbit hole with the information my brain is receiving. I'm new to quantum physics I would say I learned about this stuff TWO weeks ago! Who knows in two years with other insight and help over....TIME! OH YEAH.....All other forms of time are measured up and compared to our own but regardless, these different realities of time will always exist regardless of our observation factor. SOME of these forms have not yet started so do not yet exist but when they do.......it is described using OUR reality of time, and our reality of time has always existed, even before we did!
NOW....If we go back to a point of a singularity in the creation time you would think that is when our time started, so it did not exist at one time before. This is not true I think because there are other places, people, perceptions of time way beyond are own understanding that existed before this singularity that still took note of ITS perception of logical time and compared it with ours to know how long in "EARTH YEARS" they have actually lived before us, giving them their own insight. Theories are always fun to play with...what if that point of singularity was a reflection like a mirror? is that possible in physics?
They say a dog can feel like it lived seven years in the same time we live our one. The reality of time exist for that dog but the measurement is different than our own. We can still say there are 60 minutes in a day, seven days a week and 12 months a year that we officially measure by the second with clocks. The reason this is our reality instead of another because the change in the seasons go along with our measurement of time. Its a wondrous thing really now that I even think of it like this because who knows the cause and affect of our solar system and universes compared to others on a collective whole and wondered if..... the characteristics of the emotions we display and behave in can somehow take affect of the emotional states or sense of times that other "PLACES" realize and experience.
I say this only because of the carbon molecules that do so much within us. these molecules operate on the plank scale or is it Planck?And the nucleotides within all matter that share some type of entangled electro-magnetic factor. What we think, we usually feel and who feels it, knows it! This is what I know, there are different realities in time. Sometimes we can take drugs and feel a different reality OF time, but not IN time! What could have felt like four hours was measured officially as ONE hour and so be it in "OUR REALITY ON EARTH". You will know what I mean when you don't pay your court fee's "ON TIME". These different realities of time that do exist on the sub-atomic and grand-nuclear levels(is that a word?, You know what Imean, the study of the very large) are spaces that are a part of cause and effect as any other when it comes to certain levels.(of space, big or small) Everything is made up of nucleotides,...remember! nucleotides are smaller than atoms. NOW, thanks to entanglement THEORIES, all the energy in all the space is connected, all the mass in all the space is connected, all the ENERGETIC MASS throughout TIME is....CONNECTED.
or maybe I'm just going down the wrong rabbit hole with the information my brain is receiving. I'm new to quantum physics I would say I learned about this stuff TWO weeks ago! Who knows in two years with other insight and help over....TIME! OH YEAH.....All other forms of time are measured up and compared to our own but regardless, these different realities of time will always exist regardless of our observation factor. SOME of these forms have not yet started so do not yet exist but when they do.......it is described using OUR reality of time, and our reality of time has always existed, even before we did!
NOW....If we go back to a point of a singularity in the creation time you would think that is when our time started, so it did not exist at one time before. This is not true I think because there are other places, people, perceptions of time way beyond are own understanding that existed before this singularity that still took note of ITS perception of logical time and compared it with ours to know how long in "EARTH YEARS" they have actually lived before us, giving them their own insight. Theories are always fun to play with...what if that point of singularity was a reflection like a mirror? is that possible in physics?
QUOTE
DnuttyProfessor Posted on Yesterday at 4:29 PM Everything is made up of nucleotides,...remember! nucleotides are smaller than atoms.
generally, i think your hypothesis needs some work
would refer people to my previous post in this thread...
Good Elf's previous post in this thread
"Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference [... they are null geodesics]. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are [actually] in the one place [according to the prevailing geometry of spacetime] and exist in the same instant of time [of no duration].
photons move in space and not in time......that is the secret...
Good Elf's previous post in this thread
"Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference [... they are null geodesics]. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are [actually] in the one place [according to the prevailing geometry of spacetime] and exist in the same instant of time [of no duration].
photons move in space and not in time......that is the secret...
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 01:41 PM)
PS Time certainly does exist, whether our perception of it is how it really is or not is debatable.
In what form does it exist?
In what form does it exist?
QUOTE (atomsview+Nov 6 2007, 06:23 PM)
Time is produced by electromagnetism. Here is the logic: The speed of light of a photon is given by Maxwell's equations, it is c; and it is equal to the inverse of both the square root of the permittivity of the vacuum constant multiplied by the permeability of free space constant. The velocity of mass can be written as c / n. Velocity of photons and mass have very similar equations, both are electromagnetic. Special relativity indicates that velocity can vary both distance and time. Distance, velocity and time are therefore created by electromagnetism.
So time is a thing that is a byproduct of an action. What exactly is this time thing made of? How long does this time thing last?
Does your logic follow that the stronger the electromagnetic field the more this thing called time is produced. How much electromagnetism is needed to produce a unit of time? In the absence of electromagnetism is there also an absence of this byproduct called time?
Please tell me how distance is created by electromagnetism and not just moving objects further apart to create distance.
Did what you post here actually make logical sense to you?
So time is a thing that is a byproduct of an action. What exactly is this time thing made of? How long does this time thing last?
Does your logic follow that the stronger the electromagnetic field the more this thing called time is produced. How much electromagnetism is needed to produce a unit of time? In the absence of electromagnetism is there also an absence of this byproduct called time?
Please tell me how distance is created by electromagnetism and not just moving objects further apart to create distance.
Did what you post here actually make logical sense to you?
QUOTE (atomsview+Nov 6 2007, 06:23 PM)
Time is produced by electromagnetism. Here is the logic: The speed of light of a photon is given by Maxwell's equations, it is c; and it is equal to the inverse of both the square root of the permittivity of the vacuum constant multiplied by the permeability of free space constant. The velocity of mass can be written as c / n. Velocity of photons and mass have very similar equations, both are electromagnetic. Special relativity indicates that velocity can vary both distance and time. Distance, velocity and time are therefore created by electromagnetism.
time is not produced by anything....
time is duration of events
time is not produced by anything....
time is duration of events
Time have a connection to energy since a change of state will require energy. But energy is not time, but is composed of both wavelength (distance) and frequency (time). When energy interacts with matter it can cause a change of state in both time and space. Or energy has potential in both time and distance. With special relativity, one can add energy and increase the potential in time causing the lapse of time to slow down, since there is more time potential to process, using the laws of physics, which are the same in all references.
If I could look through a microscope, within my relativistic reference, so the distances I see, are the same as what people see in the stationary reference, the time potential difference between the references does not change. I will still see everyone buzzing about, processing their time potential faster, since they have less time potential to process. If I wanted to synchronize the two references in time also, I would have to use really fast film and make a movie. I would take that movie and play it really slow to simulate the laws of physics slowing down the rate at which they can process that small amount of time potential.
Using microscope optics, I can make both references the same distance in real time. But I can't make both time references look the same in real time. This has to do with two time potentials and only one set of physical laws. These laws are designed to process time potential at one rate. If I want these laws to appear to speed up, I need to remove time potential. I would have to slow down and shed the time potential I am carrying.
If I could look through a microscope, within my relativistic reference, so the distances I see, are the same as what people see in the stationary reference, the time potential difference between the references does not change. I will still see everyone buzzing about, processing their time potential faster, since they have less time potential to process. If I wanted to synchronize the two references in time also, I would have to use really fast film and make a movie. I would take that movie and play it really slow to simulate the laws of physics slowing down the rate at which they can process that small amount of time potential.
Using microscope optics, I can make both references the same distance in real time. But I can't make both time references look the same in real time. This has to do with two time potentials and only one set of physical laws. These laws are designed to process time potential at one rate. If I want these laws to appear to speed up, I need to remove time potential. I would have to slow down and shed the time potential I am carrying.
QUOTE
amrit Posted: Today at 1:19 AM time is not produced by anything....
are you now saying that not even events produce time ? if time is not produced by anything are you saying it is an absolute ?if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| amrit Posted: Today at 1:19 AM time is not produced by anything.... |
are you now saying that not even events produce time ? if time is not produced by anything are you saying it is an absolute ?
if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
amrit Posted: Nov 4 2007, 04:45 PM time is duration of events
if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
amrit Posted: Nov 4 2007, 04:45 PM time is duration of events
work ?
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 25 2007, 08:16 PM)
are you now saying that not even events produce time ? if time is not produced by anything are you saying it is an absolute ?
if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
work ?
Time is not produced by anything, it is not a thing that is produced or is a byproduct of some reaction.
If Time was something that was produced then that means that it depends on some action to bring it into being. So before it was produced there was none of this thing called time. Once this Time thing is produced and brought into being then what causes it to dissipate and no longer exist.
Time is a human concept. It is another form of measurement. It is not a thing that is produced and just exists on its own as a separate thing. Time is not absolute either, if it was then we would not experience those “long” weeks, a “quick” two hour movie. Time is what our concept of it is or what we agree it is with man made tools used to help mankind synchronize his activities, and measure motion.
if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
work ?
Time is not produced by anything, it is not a thing that is produced or is a byproduct of some reaction.
If Time was something that was produced then that means that it depends on some action to bring it into being. So before it was produced there was none of this thing called time. Once this Time thing is produced and brought into being then what causes it to dissipate and no longer exist.
Time is a human concept. It is another form of measurement. It is not a thing that is produced and just exists on its own as a separate thing. Time is not absolute either, if it was then we would not experience those “long” weeks, a “quick” two hour movie. Time is what our concept of it is or what we agree it is with man made tools used to help mankind synchronize his activities, and measure motion.
QUOTE
heretic Posted on Today at 7:01 AM Time is not produced by anything, it is not a thing that is produced or is a byproduct of some reaction.
by this definition, what do you mean by QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| heretic Posted on Today at 7:01 AM Time is not produced by anything, it is not a thing that is produced or is a byproduct of some reaction. |
by this definition, what do you mean by
Time is a human concept. It is another form of measurement.
Time is a human concept. It is another form of measurement.
is human concept and measurement considered as not a thing of any kind ?
QUOTE
If Time was something that was produced then that means that it depends on some action to bring it into being.
yes, i think so. time is a relative sequence of events. take for example a hypothetical universe of 3 objects (A,B and C). if these 3 objects are not in motion what does the term before or after mean ? the universe does not change, there is no before or after as before and after refer to an event. for example if the objects were in motion, you could say before the distance A to B was less than B to C etc. before there was motion between these objects there was no way to define a relative sequence of events i.e. timeQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If Time was something that was produced then that means that it depends on some action to bring it into being. |
yes, i think so. time is a relative sequence of events. take for example a hypothetical universe of 3 objects (A,B and C). if these 3 objects are not in motion what does the term before or after mean ? the universe does not change, there is no before or after as before and after refer to an event. for example if the objects were in motion, you could say before the distance A to B was less than B to C etc. before there was motion between these objects there was no way to define a relative sequence of events i.e. time
So before it was produced there was none of this thing called time.
So before it was produced there was none of this thing called time.
yes, i think so. but the term before can not be used, for if there was an event prior, by definition it would be a part of time. it is like saying what is outside the universe...
QUOTE
Once this Time thing is produced and brought into being then what causes it to dissipate and no longer exist.
you will need to define what you mean by time dissipates before i can present a reply. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once this Time thing is produced and brought into being then what causes it to dissipate and no longer exist. |
you will need to define what you mean by time dissipates before i can present a reply.
Time is not absolute either, if it was then we would not experience those “long” weeks, a “quick” two hour movie.
Time is not absolute either, if it was then we would not experience those “long” weeks, a “quick” two hour movie.
the idea of absolute time does not sit well with me either
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 25 2007, 08:16 PM)
are you now saying that not even events produce time ? if time is not produced by anything are you saying it is an absolute ?
if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
work ?
time is duration of material change
and duration is relative: stronger gravity field, slower speed of clocks, longer duration
if there were no events how does the description of time i.e.
work ?
time is duration of material change
and duration is relative: stronger gravity field, slower speed of clocks, longer duration
amrit you made the comment
and what is interesting about the current definition of a metre is that a metre is now dependent on time ie the metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. the good ye olde metre-stick is now replaced with a clock.
QUOTE
Posted on Yesterday at 1:19 AM time is not produced by anything....
and i asked for clarification as this comment does not agree with the very next comment in the same post QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Posted on Yesterday at 1:19 AM time is not produced by anything.... |
and i asked for clarification as this comment does not agree with the very next comment in the same post Posted on Yesterday at 1:19 AM time is duration of events
i think there is a difference between not produced by anything and is duration of events in that if time was not produced by anything, time would not be dependent on the duration of events. could you please expalin your comment made yesterday ?
also are you willing to contiune this discussion
i think there is a difference between not produced by anything and is duration of events in that if time was not produced by anything, time would not be dependent on the duration of events. could you please expalin your comment made yesterday ?
also are you willing to contiune this discussion
QUOTE
amrit Posted: Nov 11 2007, 04:27 AM without time, there is NO distance between points.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15873&st=45
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Nov 6 2007, 09:10 AM)
...
Time consists of an ordering of before and after. That's as far as we can go with it. Even that can get tricky with relativity.
My senses tell me that I am in a single reality moving from past to future. What scientific data can you provide to dispute that sense data?
...
Here's my problem with time.
First, as quoted, many believe that we are moving from the "past" to the "future." The past is, I suppose, "things that have happened." And the future is what? "Things that may happen?"
We all know there will be a future, but the options about what "may happen" are limitless, so it's unknown what the future will be. So at what "point" does the future become "things that have happened?" Is this point, "now?"
Of course.
So, "things that have happened" can't be changed. And "things that may happen" cannot be reliably predicted (beyond a certain scope). So the only place in time that has any meaning is "now" and perhaps that scope where we can predict what will happen next.
Time does not exist except as a tool to measure change.
Time is like meters. "Length" is a "dimension" of the physical world, and we use meters to measure it. "Change" could be a "dimension" of the physical world and we use time to measure it.
If we were to apply meters in the same way that we apply time we would use meters relative to a specific density of material, perhaps. When we measured a sponge to be 1 meter long, and we measured a brick of lead to be 1 meter long we should suggest that it's "relative" because we are measuring much more lead than we are sponge. (think density)
Likewise, as time is applied to change, we say time is relative because as the rate of change changes, the application of time changes relative to it. (think rate of change as density of change)
When we go to the extremes it becomes patently obvious. If nothing changed at all--the universe were static and unchanging--time would be completely irrelevant. Just as if something had no physical dimensions, meters are useless. How many meters long is a concept? Likewise, if change was infinite--nothing remained the same for any measurable length of "time" then what's the point of time? None.
There is no past -- only memories of it -- and there is no future. There is only now when it changes, we'll remember the old now because that's beneficial to our survival -- if not completely necessary.
I'm not a mathematician or physicist so I can't write a proof for this, but i can find no logical problem with it. Hope this thought changes the world, but I'm not naive enough to believe I'm the first to suggest it.
Time consists of an ordering of before and after. That's as far as we can go with it. Even that can get tricky with relativity.
My senses tell me that I am in a single reality moving from past to future. What scientific data can you provide to dispute that sense data?
...
Here's my problem with time.
First, as quoted, many believe that we are moving from the "past" to the "future." The past is, I suppose, "things that have happened." And the future is what? "Things that may happen?"
We all know there will be a future, but the options about what "may happen" are limitless, so it's unknown what the future will be. So at what "point" does the future become "things that have happened?" Is this point, "now?"
Of course.
So, "things that have happened" can't be changed. And "things that may happen" cannot be reliably predicted (beyond a certain scope). So the only place in time that has any meaning is "now" and perhaps that scope where we can predict what will happen next.
Time does not exist except as a tool to measure change.
Time is like meters. "Length" is a "dimension" of the physical world, and we use meters to measure it. "Change" could be a "dimension" of the physical world and we use time to measure it.
If we were to apply meters in the same way that we apply time we would use meters relative to a specific density of material, perhaps. When we measured a sponge to be 1 meter long, and we measured a brick of lead to be 1 meter long we should suggest that it's "relative" because we are measuring much more lead than we are sponge. (think density)
Likewise, as time is applied to change, we say time is relative because as the rate of change changes, the application of time changes relative to it. (think rate of change as density of change)
When we go to the extremes it becomes patently obvious. If nothing changed at all--the universe were static and unchanging--time would be completely irrelevant. Just as if something had no physical dimensions, meters are useless. How many meters long is a concept? Likewise, if change was infinite--nothing remained the same for any measurable length of "time" then what's the point of time? None.
There is no past -- only memories of it -- and there is no future. There is only now when it changes, we'll remember the old now because that's beneficial to our survival -- if not completely necessary.
I'm not a mathematician or physicist so I can't write a proof for this, but i can find no logical problem with it. Hope this thought changes the world, but I'm not naive enough to believe I'm the first to suggest it.
QUOTE
x646d63 Posted on Today at 5:55 AM "Length" is a "dimension" of the physical world, and we use meters to measure it.
and what is interesting about the current definition of a metre is that a metre is now dependent on time ie the metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. the good ye olde metre-stick is now replaced with a clock.
Hi Good Elf and Heretic,
Distance, velocity and time are all created by electromagnetism. Let us examine time. Consider a distance of 3 x 10 to the 8 Th power in meters. A photon would take one second to travel this distance, t = d / c. The ratio remains the same for any distance or time because c = d / t. Let us consider any photon of any energy, such as light, x rays, gamma rays, etc, all of these photons would take one second to travel the same distance. Energy = h freq or h c / wavelength. The time applies to all three dimensions of space. Photon cycles are continuous unless there are interactions, therefore time is also continuous. Think of a super nova, we see the past history because it takes time for light to travel. The x rays and gamma rays from the super nova reach earth at the same time as the visible light because all photons travel at light speed. Everything we see in the night sky relates to history because of the time that is needed for light to travel. Part of the sky is dark for this same reason.
I want to mention some facts about distance. Faraday’s law, Gauss’s law and Coulomb’s law relate to distance. The electrical constant, the surface area of a sphere and wavelengths all provide distance units. Both photons and mass have wavelengths, deBroglie’s equation is used for mass.
Everything is electromagnetic, as suggested by the Good Elf, including gravity. Both Maxwell and Einstein tried to discover the relation of electromagnetism to gravity. Antimatter repels matter, which is the cause of the accelerating universe. An experiment to test Earth’s gravity on antihydrogen is planned to start on Sept 2008. You can find information by using Google: antihydrogen CERN Dapnia Gravity..
Distance, velocity and time are all created by electromagnetism. Let us examine time. Consider a distance of 3 x 10 to the 8 Th power in meters. A photon would take one second to travel this distance, t = d / c. The ratio remains the same for any distance or time because c = d / t. Let us consider any photon of any energy, such as light, x rays, gamma rays, etc, all of these photons would take one second to travel the same distance. Energy = h freq or h c / wavelength. The time applies to all three dimensions of space. Photon cycles are continuous unless there are interactions, therefore time is also continuous. Think of a super nova, we see the past history because it takes time for light to travel. The x rays and gamma rays from the super nova reach earth at the same time as the visible light because all photons travel at light speed. Everything we see in the night sky relates to history because of the time that is needed for light to travel. Part of the sky is dark for this same reason.
I want to mention some facts about distance. Faraday’s law, Gauss’s law and Coulomb’s law relate to distance. The electrical constant, the surface area of a sphere and wavelengths all provide distance units. Both photons and mass have wavelengths, deBroglie’s equation is used for mass.
Everything is electromagnetic, as suggested by the Good Elf, including gravity. Both Maxwell and Einstein tried to discover the relation of electromagnetism to gravity. Antimatter repels matter, which is the cause of the accelerating universe. An experiment to test Earth’s gravity on antihydrogen is planned to start on Sept 2008. You can find information by using Google: antihydrogen CERN Dapnia Gravity..
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 26 2007, 08:22 PM)
and what is interesting about the current definition of a metre is that a metre is now dependent on time ie the metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. the good ye olde metre-stick is now replaced with a clock.
It's interesting that they used time to create a standard meter. Does that mean that the meter is dependent on time, or vice versa? If, for example, light decided to move faster through a vacuum all of the sudden, would the meter change or would we adjust the standard?
A "second" is a reflection of change. We now define as 9,192,631,770 periods of the cesium 133 atom at rest at 0K. Notice how what we're using to create time is how often we recognize change in the atom.
Temperature affects change. Density affects change. Motion affects change. All of these are compensated for by setting conditions: at rest, at 0K, in a vacuum, etc.
As change increases, photons are created. Photons may actually be "change", perhaps infinite change, which is why when mimicking a photon time seems to stop... When energy "i.e., photon" enters a system, change increases. When energy leaves a system, change decreases.
Isn't this "relativity?" As change increases, time slows. As change decreases, time speeds up.
I suppose it's just layman conjecture.
It's interesting that they used time to create a standard meter. Does that mean that the meter is dependent on time, or vice versa? If, for example, light decided to move faster through a vacuum all of the sudden, would the meter change or would we adjust the standard?
A "second" is a reflection of change. We now define as 9,192,631,770 periods of the cesium 133 atom at rest at 0K. Notice how what we're using to create time is how often we recognize change in the atom.
Temperature affects change. Density affects change. Motion affects change. All of these are compensated for by setting conditions: at rest, at 0K, in a vacuum, etc.
As change increases, photons are created. Photons may actually be "change", perhaps infinite change, which is why when mimicking a photon time seems to stop... When energy "i.e., photon" enters a system, change increases. When energy leaves a system, change decreases.
Isn't this "relativity?" As change increases, time slows. As change decreases, time speeds up.
I suppose it's just layman conjecture.
hello x646d63
QUOTE
x646d63 Posted on Today at 7:10 AM Does that mean that the meter is dependent on time, or vice versa?
the metre is dependent on timeQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| x646d63 Posted on Today at 7:10 AM Does that mean that the meter is dependent on time, or vice versa? |
the metre is dependent on time
If, for example, light decided to move faster through a vacuum all of the sudden
If, for example, light decided to move faster through a vacuum all of the sudden
if the speed of light is changing, its value in m/s will still be the same.
QUOTE
Isn't this "relativity?" As change increases, time slows. As change decreases, time speeds up.
i think its the other way around. when ever we measure something we are comparing it to a standard, in this example the period of the cesium 133 atom. if all change were to increase by the same amount, there would be no detectable difference because the standard changes as well. if for example, only the periods of the cesium 133 atom were to change, then we would notice the difference because now a difference between the measured and the measuring standard exists. if all change decreased to zero, then time would stop because the standard stops.QUOTE (kjw+Nov 26 2007, 08:22 PM)
and what is interesting about the current definition of a metre is that a metre is now dependent on time ie the metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. the good ye olde metre-stick is now replaced with a clock.
The standard, although relevant, is not my issue. Application of the tool (meter, time) is my point. We apply time and meters (as an example of a measurement of physical distance) differently.
If time measures change, and we're measuring the change of a photon (which I may suggest has "infinite change") then we measure it relatively to its state. As we know, a "year" to a photon means something very different than a year to my cat here on earth.
But when we measure distance, a meter is a meter is a meter. It's the distance a photon travels through a vacuum (no space curve?) at 0K in a given time frame for a given length of time. (that's a mouthful.)
So now when we make a box that holds a volume of one cubic meter (as defined above) we can put a certain amount of material in it, yet when we move that box into a steeper curve in space the physical volume decreases, since the curve of space packs more density into the same "length." That's because we're still using the non-curved, "distance" defined by our meter.
Am I being clear?
Change is measured relative to what it's measuring (using time.) But the physical dimensions are measured using an objective tool--not relative to the space-curve.
I think this has important ramifications to current models of the physical universe, both small and large. Things may be significantly "closer" or "farther" using a relative measuring tool, and it may explain a lot of the problems we are experiencing with the current models.
Thanks for entertaining my ramblings.
The standard, although relevant, is not my issue. Application of the tool (meter, time) is my point. We apply time and meters (as an example of a measurement of physical distance) differently.
If time measures change, and we're measuring the change of a photon (which I may suggest has "infinite change") then we measure it relatively to its state. As we know, a "year" to a photon means something very different than a year to my cat here on earth.
But when we measure distance, a meter is a meter is a meter. It's the distance a photon travels through a vacuum (no space curve?) at 0K in a given time frame for a given length of time. (that's a mouthful.)
So now when we make a box that holds a volume of one cubic meter (as defined above) we can put a certain amount of material in it, yet when we move that box into a steeper curve in space the physical volume decreases, since the curve of space packs more density into the same "length." That's because we're still using the non-curved, "distance" defined by our meter.
Am I being clear?
Change is measured relative to what it's measuring (using time.) But the physical dimensions are measured using an objective tool--not relative to the space-curve.
I think this has important ramifications to current models of the physical universe, both small and large. Things may be significantly "closer" or "farther" using a relative measuring tool, and it may explain a lot of the problems we are experiencing with the current models.
Thanks for entertaining my ramblings.
QUOTE
x646d63 Posted: Today at 6:02 AM If time measures change
and time also defines a metreQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| x646d63 Posted: Today at 6:02 AM If time measures change |
and time also defines a metre
But when we measure distance, a meter is a meter is a meter.
But when we measure distance, a meter is a meter is a meter.
not to all observers. time defines a metre and time dilates according to Special Relativity, so naturally you expect a metre to contract in order to maintain the constancy of c
That's pretty well described by the ant-rope analogy used on "The Elegant Universe". The multidimensional shapes of these compact dimensions are pretty well explained also (Calibi-Yau Manifold).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory...pact_dimensions
I'm not saying I buy it or understand it, just that is how compact dimensions are described.
That's pretty well described by the ant-rope analogy used on "The Elegant Universe". The multidimensional shapes of these compact dimensions are pretty well explained also (Calibi-Yau Manifold).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory...pact_dimensions
I'm not saying I buy it or understand it, just that is how compact dimensions are described.
Yes, I love that special and have the book as well.
Unfortunately my education went to a different field, though I try to follow Physics because it interests me so much.
We have found and created even Anti-matter. With "Dark matter" and "Dark energy" supposedly consituting 70% of the universe even though despite the best efforts, neither have ever been detected, I think we are pretty seriously misunderstanding some basic principles. Just wish I knew what they were HAHA.
I think eventually and hopefully in my lifetime, we are overdue for another major fundamental upheaval in Physics.
Here is my silly crackpot conjecture. I think that it is not really chance or probability that drives Quantum Mechanics. I think it is rather more that at these incredible small levels, particles exist in all the additional dimensions as well as our own, and what we are seeing is that they are being perturbed by the act of observation, out of our dimension, or vibrate or oscillate in and out or across dimensional boundaries. The probabilities or wave functions merely represent only the existence of the particle we can observe in our dimensionally limited view.
It could also be that ALL particles vibrate or oscillate in and out, and only spend about 30% of their time in our observed universe. Then Dark matter and energy are not needed.
Probably sounds nutty, but, like Einstein, I too have a problem with "God throwing dice" and would prefer an elegant and simple explanation. Shroedinger's cat drives me nuts.
2. We exist in the present as we travel past->present->future. We can anticipate the future, make predictions about it, and postulate it will exist. We remember the past. We can only exist in the present. We are nearly helpless with regard to the accuracy with which we can predict future events (chaos, butterflies, and such)
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
3. As for the comment that time is simply a tool for measuring change, the word "measuring" implies cognizant action which is not required for time to exist.
Time is a tool to measure change. That's what we do with time. From time A to time B we recognize changes. As A and B get closer together, less change occurs.
Without change, time is completely irrelevant. There are expressions and experiences that highlight this. "Time is standing still" when you observe very little change. "Time flies when you are having fun" usually when you are experiencing rapid or frequent change. These aren't scientific, of course, but anecdotes often suggest reality.
I say Time is the dimension used to measure the relationship of events. Event 1 and event 2 are always separated (or not) by time. (we can get into light cones and relativity if you want) We then use periodic events to measure time. Of course, this presupposes the existence of events separated by some magical dimension called time (cause and effect, which I will get into)
How is this any different than using time to measure change? Cause and Effect are change. Without cause, there is no effect, and no change.
No change = no value. No change = time is worthless as a tool.
Remember your bias. Your mind requires "time" to catalog its memories. The reality is that time is manufactured by human perception, but is irrelevant to the universe. Without human perception, time does not exist. Change continues.
That being said, I still have unanswered questions. If space-time is relative in modern theory, why isn't it applied that way? For example, we say that the Earth is 12.7M kilometers, but isn't space curved as we approach the center of earth's gravity? Don't meters get shorter in curved space (from an outsider's perspective)? If we are using a meter as defined in a vacuum, shouldn't Earth be significantly "larger" as the meter gets much shorter (from our perspective) near the center of Earth's gravity?
Maybe this already occurs and it's lost on me. But if it is not applied in this way, it would have profound impacts on modern theory. For example, if the earth's mass is actually, let's say, 300 times its current estimate (since space is denser near the center, so there's lots more than we perceive from out here), does the gravity/mass relationship have to change since thing still accelerate towards earth at 9.8m/s2?
Curious.
QUOTE
So now when we make a box that holds a volume of one cubic meter (as defined above) we can put a certain amount of material in it, yet when we move that box into a steeper curve in space the physical volume decreases, since the curve of space packs more density into the same "length." That's because we're still using the non-curved, "distance" defined by our meter.
Am I being clear?
if a suitable answer would be, but the metre also decreases by the same proportion as the cube so that an observer in the box would not notice the volume decrease, then yes you are being clear enoughAm I being clear?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So now when we make a box that holds a volume of one cubic meter (as defined above) we can put a certain amount of material in it, yet when we move that box into a steeper curve in space the physical volume decreases, since the curve of space packs more density into the same "length." That's because we're still using the non-curved, "distance" defined by our meter. Am I being clear? |
if a suitable answer would be, but the metre also decreases by the same proportion as the cube so that an observer in the box would not notice the volume decrease, then yes you are being clear enough
Change is measured relative to what it's measuring (using time.) But the physical dimensions are measured using an objective tool--not relative to the space-curve.
Change is measured relative to what it's measuring (using time.) But the physical dimensions are measured using an objective tool--not relative to the space-curve.
a metre is not objective
QUOTE
Thanks for entertaining my ramblings.
and thank you for entertaining mine
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 26 2007, 07:50 PM)
amrit you made the comment and i asked for clarification as this comment does not agree with the very next comment in the same post
i think there is a difference between not produced by anything and is duration of events in that if time was not produced by anything, time would not be dependent on the duration of events. could you please expalin your comment made yesterday ?
also are you willing to contiune this discussion http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15873&st=45
I'm consistent guys
sure time can not be produced by anything
as time is duration
time is physical reality as duration of events that run into space
and is not physical reality as a medium into which events run
difference is enormous, epochal, essential.........
time has no arrow........direction.......
objects that move into space have direction.....motion has direction
and time as duration of motion as no direction
i think there is a difference between not produced by anything and is duration of events in that if time was not produced by anything, time would not be dependent on the duration of events. could you please expalin your comment made yesterday ?
also are you willing to contiune this discussion http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15873&st=45
I'm consistent guys
sure time can not be produced by anything
as time is duration
time is physical reality as duration of events that run into space
and is not physical reality as a medium into which events run
difference is enormous, epochal, essential.........
time has no arrow........direction.......
objects that move into space have direction.....motion has direction
and time as duration of motion as no direction
Hello Amrit
Your statement:
Time does not run into space on its own.
Run into space. Look at it deeper and you will see that you are using relative time to define relative time. Its like using nanoseconds or Planck-seconds to define one second.
What I mean is, that you are only approaching the idea of absolute (an instant). Why approaching? Because you are giving it a relative measure. Its still relative time. An instant does not have relative time measure.
Your statement:
Time does not run into space on its own.
Run into space. Look at it deeper and you will see that you are using relative time to define relative time. Its like using nanoseconds or Planck-seconds to define one second.
What I mean is, that you are only approaching the idea of absolute (an instant). Why approaching? Because you are giving it a relative measure. Its still relative time. An instant does not have relative time measure.
The constant of Light Speed
1. A photon travels at light speed, the following equation is used to calculate distance:
d = ( wavelength x frequency ) time
c = wavelength x frequency
c = d / t
2. Mass has the following equation:
d = velocity x time
How does the speed of light enter the equation for mass? The answer is found by applying deBroglie’s theorem and Einstein’s equation:
m x v = h / wavelength
E = m c c
(E / c x c) x v = h / wavelength
E = h x c x c / wavelength x v
E = ( h c / wavelength) (c / v)
Let c / v = n
3. The equation for mass can therefore be written as:
d = v x t
d = (c / n) t
(d /t) n = c
The velocity of mass is therefore related to the speed of light. Light speed is common to both photons and mass. The speed of light is a common link in Maxwell’s and Einstein’s equations.
1. A photon travels at light speed, the following equation is used to calculate distance:
d = ( wavelength x frequency ) time
c = wavelength x frequency
c = d / t
2. Mass has the following equation:
d = velocity x time
How does the speed of light enter the equation for mass? The answer is found by applying deBroglie’s theorem and Einstein’s equation:
m x v = h / wavelength
E = m c c
(E / c x c) x v = h / wavelength
E = h x c x c / wavelength x v
E = ( h c / wavelength) (c / v)
Let c / v = n
3. The equation for mass can therefore be written as:
d = v x t
d = (c / n) t
(d /t) n = c
The velocity of mass is therefore related to the speed of light. Light speed is common to both photons and mass. The speed of light is a common link in Maxwell’s and Einstein’s equations.
QUOTE
amrit Posted: Yesterday at 8:18 PM time can not be produced by anything
what not even by material change ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| amrit Posted: Yesterday at 8:18 PM time can not be produced by anything |
what not even by material change ?
amrit signature TIME IS DURATION OF MATERIAL CHANGE
amrit signature TIME IS DURATION OF MATERIAL CHANGE
if time is duration of material change, then how could time not be produced by duration of material change ? if this reasoning is extended, you end up with statements such as
momentum is the product of mass and velocity, but momentum is not produced by velocity or
wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, but wavelength is not produced by frequency
can you see why the first quote is not consistent with the second quote ?
momentum is the product of mass and velocity, but momentum is not produced by velocity or
wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, but wavelength is not produced by frequency
can you see why the first quote is not consistent with the second quote ?
WARNING: various ramblings follow, all IMHO:
1. The meter depends on time simply because we can measure time more accurately than length. It is a technological thing of no philosophical value. Just cute to play with.
2. We exist in the present as we travel past->present->future. We can anticipate the future, make predictions about it, and postulate it will exist. We remember the past. We can only exist in the present. We are nearly helpless with regard to the accuracy with which we can predict future events (chaos, butterflies, and such)
3. As for the comment that time is simply a tool for measuring change, the word "measuring" implies cognizant action which is not required for time to exist.
3a. Time is duration is like saying water is H2O, or rain is water, or something else obvious. But what insight does that provide?
4. I say Time is the dimension used to measure the relationship of events. Event 1 and event 2 are always separated (or not) by time. (we can get into light cones and relativity if you want) We then use periodic events to measure time. Of course, this presupposes the existence of events separated by some magical dimension called time (cause and effect, which I will get into)
5. Photons experience no time and no distance since they travel at c. I don't know how to resolve this yet.
6. Feynman and wheeler absorber theory uses negative time (action in the past based on the present). I don't know whether that is simply a mathematical symmetry that happens to work out nicely, or if it is a reflection of reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80...absorber_theory
I think others use virtual photons with borrowed energy, or something. (don't know, still trying to understand it)
7. My personal philosophy: We live in a cause and effect universe. Something is valuable, or has value, or exists, only in respect to its effects. No effect = no value = no existence. (in the beginning was a cause). Cause and effect are the mainstay of the universe we experience, and they determine the "arrow of time" that we experience. But, I can't say that ultimately they are not symmetrical (IE, they can be reversed), but we certainly don't generally experience them reversed.
8. Regarding the value of EFFECTS, think about it for a bit. If something has an effect you desire, it has value and is important to you. But, if it has no effect you care about, it has no value to you. Think about this in a larger sense. If something has NO effect, how can it even exist? "No effect" means it is not detectable. That boils down to "No Change" = "No Existence" so there can be no absolutes. Not sure what this has to do with time.
9. So, this post has value only in how it affects, that is the effects it creates. No replies = No value
1. The meter depends on time simply because we can measure time more accurately than length. It is a technological thing of no philosophical value. Just cute to play with.
2. We exist in the present as we travel past->present->future. We can anticipate the future, make predictions about it, and postulate it will exist. We remember the past. We can only exist in the present. We are nearly helpless with regard to the accuracy with which we can predict future events (chaos, butterflies, and such)
3. As for the comment that time is simply a tool for measuring change, the word "measuring" implies cognizant action which is not required for time to exist.
3a. Time is duration is like saying water is H2O, or rain is water, or something else obvious. But what insight does that provide?
4. I say Time is the dimension used to measure the relationship of events. Event 1 and event 2 are always separated (or not) by time. (we can get into light cones and relativity if you want) We then use periodic events to measure time. Of course, this presupposes the existence of events separated by some magical dimension called time
(cause and effect, which I will get into)5. Photons experience no time and no distance since they travel at c. I don't know how to resolve this yet.
6. Feynman and wheeler absorber theory uses negative time (action in the past based on the present). I don't know whether that is simply a mathematical symmetry that happens to work out nicely, or if it is a reflection of reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80...absorber_theory
I think others use virtual photons with borrowed energy, or something. (don't know, still trying to understand it)
7. My personal philosophy: We live in a cause and effect universe. Something is valuable, or has value, or exists, only in respect to its effects. No effect = no value = no existence. (in the beginning was a cause). Cause and effect are the mainstay of the universe we experience, and they determine the "arrow of time" that we experience. But, I can't say that ultimately they are not symmetrical (IE, they can be reversed), but we certainly don't generally experience them reversed.
8. Regarding the value of EFFECTS, think about it for a bit. If something has an effect you desire, it has value and is important to you. But, if it has no effect you care about, it has no value to you. Think about this in a larger sense. If something has NO effect, how can it even exist? "No effect" means it is not detectable. That boils down to "No Change" = "No Existence" so there can be no absolutes. Not sure what this has to do with time.
9. So, this post has value only in how it affects, that is the effects it creates. No replies = No value
How about this...
Time is just the fourth dimension, so of course it exists.
Time is just a fourth dimension. If you assume the definition of a dimension is:
"a property of space; extension in a given direction: A straight line has one dimension, a parallelogram has two dimensions, and a parallelepiped has three dimensions."
Time can be viewed as simply a dimension. It simultaneously modifies all components of the three previous dimensions (height, width and depth) in a similar way that the second dimension modifies the first, the third the second and so on. It provides an infinite additional frame of all three previous dimensions going linearly backward or forward.
The major difference is how we experience time compared to the other dimensions. We have only a point-like view of time, while we have complete purview constantly of the other three. We also can only view the point-like slice of time as it travels in a positive or forward direction at apparently a constant rate. We know there is a continuous line-like existence of time, but can only directly sense the point-like "now" and are aware of the previous (negative translation) along the line, although we can easily deduce the existence of the forward travel along the dimension by nature of our constant travel in the forward direction, even though we cannot sense past our point-like observed universe.
So Space-Time is just a term referring to all four dimensions at once. Space the first three, and Time the fourth.
Most of our physics just describes how the first three interact with our point-like view of the fourth, since change is not possible without Time travel (translation along the axis of the Time dimension), neither is acceleration, all forces (ALL forces, down to the nuclear) are unmeasureable and irrelevant.
Additional dimensions posited and mathematically suggested by the current efforts at a Theory of Everything like String theory need not be "curled up into infinitely small unsenseable spaces that cannot be sensed and do not impact our observable world". They could just be beyond our ability to observe, and existing each at a "right angle" to all existing previous dimensions, in full flower around us, but beyond our capacity to observe.
Time is just the fourth dimension, so of course it exists.
Time is just a fourth dimension. If you assume the definition of a dimension is:
"a property of space; extension in a given direction: A straight line has one dimension, a parallelogram has two dimensions, and a parallelepiped has three dimensions."
Time can be viewed as simply a dimension. It simultaneously modifies all components of the three previous dimensions (height, width and depth) in a similar way that the second dimension modifies the first, the third the second and so on. It provides an infinite additional frame of all three previous dimensions going linearly backward or forward.
The major difference is how we experience time compared to the other dimensions. We have only a point-like view of time, while we have complete purview constantly of the other three. We also can only view the point-like slice of time as it travels in a positive or forward direction at apparently a constant rate. We know there is a continuous line-like existence of time, but can only directly sense the point-like "now" and are aware of the previous (negative translation) along the line, although we can easily deduce the existence of the forward travel along the dimension by nature of our constant travel in the forward direction, even though we cannot sense past our point-like observed universe.
So Space-Time is just a term referring to all four dimensions at once. Space the first three, and Time the fourth.
Most of our physics just describes how the first three interact with our point-like view of the fourth, since change is not possible without Time travel (translation along the axis of the Time dimension), neither is acceleration, all forces (ALL forces, down to the nuclear) are unmeasureable and irrelevant.
Additional dimensions posited and mathematically suggested by the current efforts at a Theory of Everything like String theory need not be "curled up into infinitely small unsenseable spaces that cannot be sensed and do not impact our observable world". They could just be beyond our ability to observe, and existing each at a "right angle" to all existing previous dimensions, in full flower around us, but beyond our capacity to observe.
And here is a weirder extrapolation from the previous post.
If space= 3d, or height width and depth, this could be represented by Mass
If Time is a 4th dimension, it could be represented in measurements by Seconds, etc.
But what of what is left out of the above two? Energy. Perhaps ENERGY represents a seperate dimension, that we have always lumped into the first three.
Perhaps the old reliable E=(MC)squared perfectly illustrates that Energy could be a quality best described by another dimension? Hmmm.. that seems like a reach, but...
From Wiki on energy:
In physics and other sciences, energy (from the Greek ενεργός, energos, "active, working")[1] is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Several different forms, such as kinetic, potential, thermal, electromagnetic, chemical, nuclear, and mass have been defined to explain all known natural phenomena.
Kinetic energy = "the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity."
Potential Energy= "energy stored within a physical system."
Thermal Energy= " energy portion of a system that increases with its temperature."
Electromagnetic Energy= "a self-propagating wave in space with electric and magnetic components. These components oscillate at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation, and are in phase with each other. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the wave"
Chemical Energy="the energy due to associations of atoms in molecules and various other kinds of aggregrates of matter. It may be defined as a work done by electric forces during re-arrangement of electric charges, electrons and protons, in the process of aggregration. If the chemical energy of a system decreases during a chemical reaction, it is transferred to the surroundings in some form of energy (often heat); on the other hand if the chemical energy of a system increases as a result of a chemical reaction - it is by converting another form of energy from the surroundings."
Nuclear Energy="energy that is directly released from the atomic nucleus. The conversion of nuclear mass to energy is consistent with the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc², in which E = energy, m = mass defect, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum (a physical constant)."
So it seems consistent to me that all of the above "different" energies describe what could be considered another single axis. The energetic content of the mass it is describing.
Kinetic energy = energy of any form already used to impart the current motion to Mass
Potential energy = energy stored and not released in Mass
Thermal Energy = just a description of a particular aspect of energy transfer regarding Mass
Electromagnetic Energy= another description of a particular aspect of energy transfer to Mass
Chemical Energy= another description of a particular aspect of energy transfer from mass to energy
Nuclear Energy= Another description of a particular aspect of conversion from Mass to energy
The troubling part is, that Energy seems not to have a singular form, in that the forces are represented by Gravitation, Electroweak, and Strong. Perhaps Energy is in fact interacting with 3 other Dimensional entities, or 3 seperate but similar dimensions.
So now we have Space (dimensions 1-3)
Time (dimension 4)
Energy (dimensions 5, 6, 7)
So can we completely accurately describe something (or actually a system of particles) by giving linear coordinates in 7 dimensions?
Or am I completely off on a wild tangent?
If space= 3d, or height width and depth, this could be represented by Mass
If Time is a 4th dimension, it could be represented in measurements by Seconds, etc.
But what of what is left out of the above two? Energy. Perhaps ENERGY represents a seperate dimension, that we have always lumped into the first three.
Perhaps the old reliable E=(MC)squared perfectly illustrates that Energy could be a quality best described by another dimension? Hmmm.. that seems like a reach, but...
From Wiki on energy:
QUOTE
In physics and other sciences, energy (from the Greek ενεργός, energos, "active, working")[1] is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Several different forms, such as kinetic, potential, thermal, electromagnetic, chemical, nuclear, and mass have been defined to explain all known natural phenomena.
Kinetic energy = "the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity."
Potential Energy= "energy stored within a physical system."
Thermal Energy= " energy portion of a system that increases with its temperature."
Electromagnetic Energy= "a self-propagating wave in space with electric and magnetic components. These components oscillate at right angles to each other and to the direction of propagation, and are in phase with each other. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the wave"
Chemical Energy="the energy due to associations of atoms in molecules and various other kinds of aggregrates of matter. It may be defined as a work done by electric forces during re-arrangement of electric charges, electrons and protons, in the process of aggregration. If the chemical energy of a system decreases during a chemical reaction, it is transferred to the surroundings in some form of energy (often heat); on the other hand if the chemical energy of a system increases as a result of a chemical reaction - it is by converting another form of energy from the surroundings."
Nuclear Energy="energy that is directly released from the atomic nucleus. The conversion of nuclear mass to energy is consistent with the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc², in which E = energy, m = mass defect, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum (a physical constant)."
So it seems consistent to me that all of the above "different" energies describe what could be considered another single axis. The energetic content of the mass it is describing.
Kinetic energy = energy of any form already used to impart the current motion to Mass
Potential energy = energy stored and not released in Mass
Thermal Energy = just a description of a particular aspect of energy transfer regarding Mass
Electromagnetic Energy= another description of a particular aspect of energy transfer to Mass
Chemical Energy= another description of a particular aspect of energy transfer from mass to energy
Nuclear Energy= Another description of a particular aspect of conversion from Mass to energy
The troubling part is, that Energy seems not to have a singular form, in that the forces are represented by Gravitation, Electroweak, and Strong. Perhaps Energy is in fact interacting with 3 other Dimensional entities, or 3 seperate but similar dimensions.
So now we have Space (dimensions 1-3)
Time (dimension 4)
Energy (dimensions 5, 6, 7)
So can we completely accurately describe something (or actually a system of particles) by giving linear coordinates in 7 dimensions?
Or am I completely off on a wild tangent?
Hi Deadbeat and everyone,
I provide these following equations that relate to Deadbeat's information.
Kinetic Energy = mvv/2
Total Energy = mcc / (1 – vv / cc) square root
Photon Energy = hc/ wavelength
E = mcc
Wavelength = h/mv
Eq = F = ma = mvv/r
v n = c for mass
c = E / B = wavelength x frequency for photons
The three dimensions relate to electromagnetism because a photon occupies three dimensions, each of which are perpendicular to each other. Time is relative to all three dimensions because of the relationships of the electric and magnetic fields, and wavelength and frequency. The equation for a photon is: d = (wavelength x frequency) t. Mass is an equivalent form of energy. For more data see my previous items.
I provide these following equations that relate to Deadbeat's information.
Kinetic Energy = mvv/2
Total Energy = mcc / (1 – vv / cc) square root
Photon Energy = hc/ wavelength
E = mcc
Wavelength = h/mv
Eq = F = ma = mvv/r
v n = c for mass
c = E / B = wavelength x frequency for photons
The three dimensions relate to electromagnetism because a photon occupies three dimensions, each of which are perpendicular to each other. Time is relative to all three dimensions because of the relationships of the electric and magnetic fields, and wavelength and frequency. The equation for a photon is: d = (wavelength x frequency) t. Mass is an equivalent form of energy. For more data see my previous items.
QUOTE (atomsview+Dec 2 2007, 05:35 PM)
How does the speed of light enter the equation for mass? The answer is found by applying deBroglie’s theorem and Einstein’s equation:
m x v = h / wavelength
E = m c c
(E / c x c) x v = h / wavelength
E = h x c x c / wavelength x v
E = ( h c / wavelength) (c / v)
Let c / v = n
I'm going to say this once only: E = mc^2 ONLY APPLIES TO PARTICLES AT REST
m x v = h / wavelength
E = m c c
(E / c x c) x v = h / wavelength
E = h x c x c / wavelength x v
E = ( h c / wavelength) (c / v)
Let c / v = n
I'm going to say this once only: E = mc^2 ONLY APPLIES TO PARTICLES AT REST
Hi Prometheus.
Mass can expressed as total energy in deBroglie as follows:
m = h / v x wavelength
m / (1 - vv / cc) square root = E / cc
E / cc = relativistic mass
E = (h c / wavelength) ( c / v)
Let n = c / v
This is the relativistic equation, note that n = c / v
Mass can expressed as total energy in deBroglie as follows:
m = h / v x wavelength
m / (1 - vv / cc) square root = E / cc
E / cc = relativistic mass
E = (h c / wavelength) ( c / v)
Let n = c / v
This is the relativistic equation, note that n = c / v
@deadbeat
Time is not and cannot be considered a 4th spacial dimension. You can play philosophical mind games to try to associate it with a 4th spacial dimension, but it is different. The 4th spacial dimension of a tesseract is not time. String theory talks of many spacial dimensions + a time dimension. There are also 2 time-dimension theories.
I have made assertions similar to what you are saying
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=262894
One thing that made that clear to me that I was wrong was Kants analysis
So I guess this was settled in 1746
The basic premise is that if there was a 4th full-sized spacial dimension, we could test its effects as above. Additional spacial dimensions must be compact (small) as described in string theory.
Time is the dimension we use to measure occurrences, or events, or whatever you want to call them.
I'm sorry to see that my other ideas accumulated no interest. So much for my effectiveness.
Time is not and cannot be considered a 4th spacial dimension. You can play philosophical mind games to try to associate it with a 4th spacial dimension, but it is different. The 4th spacial dimension of a tesseract is not time. String theory talks of many spacial dimensions + a time dimension. There are also 2 time-dimension theories.
I have made assertions similar to what you are saying
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=262894
One thing that made that clear to me that I was wrong was Kants analysis
QUOTE
In Kant’s first published work, Thoughts on the True Estimations of Living Forces (1746), he speculated that space’s three-dimensionality can be derived from gravity’s inverse square law.
So I guess this was settled in 1746
The basic premise is that if there was a 4th full-sized spacial dimension, we could test its effects as above. Additional spacial dimensions must be compact (small) as described in string theory.
Time is the dimension we use to measure occurrences, or events, or whatever you want to call them.
I'm sorry to see that my other ideas accumulated no interest. So much for my effectiveness.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 4 2007, 12:15 AM)
@deadbeat
Time is not and cannot be considered a 4th spacial dimension. You can play philosophical mind games to try to associate it with a 4th spacial dimension, but it is different. The 4th spacial dimension of a tesseract is not time. String theory talks of many spacial dimensions + a time dimension. There are also 2 time-dimension theories.
I have made assertions similar to what you are saying
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=262894
One thing that made that clear to me that I was wrong was Kants analysis
So I guess this was settled in 1746
The basic premise is that if there was a 4th full-sized spacial dimension, we could test its effects as above. Additional spacial dimensions must be compact (small) as described in string theory.
Time is the dimension we use to measure occurrences, or events, or whatever you want to call them.
I'm sorry to see that my other ideas accumulated no interest. So much for my effectiveness.
But that is exactly it....you are describing SPATIAL dimensions, which are practically impossible after the third. Which is why the "additional dimensions" as posited in String theory must be rolled up or compact. Which if you think about it is a contradiction. How could it be rolled up small enough, and still be at right angles to everything in the universe?
Time however fits the bill, it describes each and every bit of the known universe in a postulateable linear way, an infinite number of frames, yes? It is NOT however SPATIAL.
It makes MUCH more sense if the additional dimensions were omnipresent all along, not rolled up too small.
Energy does not have mass. It takes up no space. It needs no spatial dimension, I think it may be an additional (or even three) more dimensions. By that I mean it is a measurable quality that describes and interacts with every particle in the known universe, but the linearity of it may be in question, as we have three unreconciled forces?
I might just still be spouting nonsense, but I swear in my pea-sized brain it makes sense.
Time is not and cannot be considered a 4th spacial dimension. You can play philosophical mind games to try to associate it with a 4th spacial dimension, but it is different. The 4th spacial dimension of a tesseract is not time. String theory talks of many spacial dimensions + a time dimension. There are also 2 time-dimension theories.
I have made assertions similar to what you are saying
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=262894
One thing that made that clear to me that I was wrong was Kants analysis
So I guess this was settled in 1746
The basic premise is that if there was a 4th full-sized spacial dimension, we could test its effects as above. Additional spacial dimensions must be compact (small) as described in string theory.
Time is the dimension we use to measure occurrences, or events, or whatever you want to call them.
I'm sorry to see that my other ideas accumulated no interest. So much for my effectiveness.
But that is exactly it....you are describing SPATIAL dimensions, which are practically impossible after the third. Which is why the "additional dimensions" as posited in String theory must be rolled up or compact. Which if you think about it is a contradiction. How could it be rolled up small enough, and still be at right angles to everything in the universe?
Time however fits the bill, it describes each and every bit of the known universe in a postulateable linear way, an infinite number of frames, yes? It is NOT however SPATIAL.
It makes MUCH more sense if the additional dimensions were omnipresent all along, not rolled up too small.
Energy does not have mass. It takes up no space. It needs no spatial dimension, I think it may be an additional (or even three) more dimensions. By that I mean it is a measurable quality that describes and interacts with every particle in the known universe, but the linearity of it may be in question, as we have three unreconciled forces?
I might just still be spouting nonsense, but I swear in my pea-sized brain it makes sense.
QUOTE
How could it be rolled up small enough, and still be at right angles to everything in the universe?
That's pretty well described by the ant-rope analogy used on "The Elegant Universe". The multidimensional shapes of these compact dimensions are pretty well explained also (Calibi-Yau Manifold).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory...pact_dimensions
I'm not saying I buy it or understand it, just that is how compact dimensions are described.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 4 2007, 07:48 AM)
That's pretty well described by the ant-rope analogy used on "The Elegant Universe". The multidimensional shapes of these compact dimensions are pretty well explained also (Calibi-Yau Manifold).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory...pact_dimensions
I'm not saying I buy it or understand it, just that is how compact dimensions are described.
Yes, I love that special and have the book as well.
Unfortunately my education went to a different field, though I try to follow Physics because it interests me so much.
We have found and created even Anti-matter. With "Dark matter" and "Dark energy" supposedly consituting 70% of the universe even though despite the best efforts, neither have ever been detected, I think we are pretty seriously misunderstanding some basic principles. Just wish I knew what they were HAHA.
I think eventually and hopefully in my lifetime, we are overdue for another major fundamental upheaval in Physics.
Here is my silly crackpot conjecture. I think that it is not really chance or probability that drives Quantum Mechanics. I think it is rather more that at these incredible small levels, particles exist in all the additional dimensions as well as our own, and what we are seeing is that they are being perturbed by the act of observation, out of our dimension, or vibrate or oscillate in and out or across dimensional boundaries. The probabilities or wave functions merely represent only the existence of the particle we can observe in our dimensionally limited view.
It could also be that ALL particles vibrate or oscillate in and out, and only spend about 30% of their time in our observed universe. Then Dark matter and energy are not needed.
Probably sounds nutty, but, like Einstein, I too have a problem with "God throwing dice" and would prefer an elegant and simple explanation. Shroedinger's cat drives me nuts.
WHile I am baring my embarassing childish ideas,
Here is another one based on the previous.
Gravity.
What if gravity operated directly and was only observable in a seperate dimension not currently observable to us?
If the particles vibrated across dimensions, or simultaneously existed in all dimensions, we would see the effect, but neither the force itself or the energy or packets that transmitted it?
Anyway, it is just that my little brainchild explains a lot for me, but I lack the ability to prove or disprove it. Guess I should take some more courses.
Here is another one based on the previous.
Gravity.
What if gravity operated directly and was only observable in a seperate dimension not currently observable to us?
If the particles vibrated across dimensions, or simultaneously existed in all dimensions, we would see the effect, but neither the force itself or the energy or packets that transmitted it?
Anyway, it is just that my little brainchild explains a lot for me, but I lack the ability to prove or disprove it. Guess I should take some more courses.
QUOTE
2. We exist in the present as we travel past->present->future. We can anticipate the future, make predictions about it, and postulate it will exist. We remember the past. We can only exist in the present. We are nearly helpless with regard to the accuracy with which we can predict future events (chaos, butterflies, and such)
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
2. We exist in the present as we travel past->present->future. We can anticipate the future, make predictions about it, and postulate it will exist. We remember the past. We can only exist in the present. We are nearly helpless with regard to the accuracy with which we can predict future events (chaos, butterflies, and such) |
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
3. As for the comment that time is simply a tool for measuring change, the word "measuring" implies cognizant action which is not required for time to exist.
Time is a tool to measure change. That's what we do with time. From time A to time B we recognize changes. As A and B get closer together, less change occurs.
Without change, time is completely irrelevant. There are expressions and experiences that highlight this. "Time is standing still" when you observe very little change. "Time flies when you are having fun" usually when you are experiencing rapid or frequent change. These aren't scientific, of course, but anecdotes often suggest reality.
QUOTE
I say Time is the dimension used to measure the relationship of events. Event 1 and event 2 are always separated (or not) by time. (we can get into light cones and relativity if you want) We then use periodic events to measure time. Of course, this presupposes the existence of events separated by some magical dimension called time
(cause and effect, which I will get into)How is this any different than using time to measure change? Cause and Effect are change. Without cause, there is no effect, and no change.
No change = no value. No change = time is worthless as a tool.
Remember your bias. Your mind requires "time" to catalog its memories. The reality is that time is manufactured by human perception, but is irrelevant to the universe. Without human perception, time does not exist. Change continues.
That being said, I still have unanswered questions. If space-time is relative in modern theory, why isn't it applied that way? For example, we say that the Earth is 12.7M kilometers, but isn't space curved as we approach the center of earth's gravity? Don't meters get shorter in curved space (from an outsider's perspective)? If we are using a meter as defined in a vacuum, shouldn't Earth be significantly "larger" as the meter gets much shorter (from our perspective) near the center of Earth's gravity?
Maybe this already occurs and it's lost on me. But if it is not applied in this way, it would have profound impacts on modern theory. For example, if the earth's mass is actually, let's say, 300 times its current estimate (since space is denser near the center, so there's lots more than we perceive from out here), does the gravity/mass relationship have to change since thing still accelerate towards earth at 9.8m/s2?
Curious.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 4 2007, 12:15 AM)
Time is the dimension we use to measure occurrences, or events, or whatever you want to call them.
We don't use dimensions to measure, we measure dimensions.
We use time to measure change, as we use meters to measure distance.
I have long posited that we experience three, and only three dimensions: space, charge and change.
Space quantifies an object. (length, width, depth)
Charge quantifies the energy contained within an object. (positive, negative)
Change quantifies the application of energy by an object. (change)
We use meters to measure space.
We use volts to measure charge.
We use time to measure change.
Thoughts?
We don't use dimensions to measure, we measure dimensions.
We use time to measure change, as we use meters to measure distance.
I have long posited that we experience three, and only three dimensions: space, charge and change.
Space quantifies an object. (length, width, depth)
Charge quantifies the energy contained within an object. (positive, negative)
Change quantifies the application of energy by an object. (change)
We use meters to measure space.
We use volts to measure charge.
We use time to measure change.
Thoughts?
QUOTE (x646d63+Dec 11 2007, 08:53 PM)
We don't use dimensions to measure, we measure dimensions.
We use time to measure change, as we use meters to measure distance.
I have long posited that we experience three, and only three dimensions: space, charge and change.
Space quantifies an object. (length, width, depth)
Charge quantifies the energy contained within an object. (positive, negative)
Change quantifies the application of energy by an object. (change)
We use meters to measure space.
We use volts to measure charge.
We use time to measure change.
Thoughts?
We do use dimensions to measure space. It is a defined unit of measure, meter, foot, etc. that serves as a reference for comparison.
The unit has to logically be the same type as the thing measured.
For time we use a periodic event (clock ticks, sunrises, etc.), therefore we express the duration or seperation of an event in terms of other (unit) events.
In the end we are counting and ordering, making comparisons of sets, and arriving at a number.
We do use dimensions to measure space. It is a defined unit of measure, meter, foot, etc. that serves as a reference for comparison.
The unit has to logically be the same type as the thing measured.
For time we use a periodic event (clock ticks, sunrises, etc.), therefore we express the duration or seperation of an event in terms of other (unit) events.
In the end we are counting and ordering, making comparisons of sets, and arriving at a number.
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
I agree with you here 100%
The universe just transforms from one state to another according to the laws imposed upon it, but in a random fashion. The particles do not have a memory (as far as science knows) therefore have no 'direction in time' as humans do.
The time 'dimension' thing is just some interpreting the mathematical models as physically real.
Relativity deals with subjective times. So if each observer moves through a literal time dimension at different rates, how do they stay together?
We use time to measure change, as we use meters to measure distance.
I have long posited that we experience three, and only three dimensions: space, charge and change.
Space quantifies an object. (length, width, depth)
Charge quantifies the energy contained within an object. (positive, negative)
Change quantifies the application of energy by an object. (change)
We use meters to measure space.
We use volts to measure charge.
We use time to measure change.
Thoughts?
QUOTE
We don't use dimensions to measure, we measure dimensions.
We do use dimensions to measure space. It is a defined unit of measure, meter, foot, etc. that serves as a reference for comparison.
The unit has to logically be the same type as the thing measured.
For time we use a periodic event (clock ticks, sunrises, etc.), therefore we express the duration or seperation of an event in terms of other (unit) events.
In the end we are counting and ordering, making comparisons of sets, and arriving at a number.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We don't use dimensions to measure, we measure dimensions. |
We do use dimensions to measure space. It is a defined unit of measure, meter, foot, etc. that serves as a reference for comparison.
The unit has to logically be the same type as the thing measured.
For time we use a periodic event (clock ticks, sunrises, etc.), therefore we express the duration or seperation of an event in terms of other (unit) events.
In the end we are counting and ordering, making comparisons of sets, and arriving at a number.
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
I agree with you here 100%
The universe just transforms from one state to another according to the laws imposed upon it, but in a random fashion. The particles do not have a memory (as far as science knows) therefore have no 'direction in time' as humans do.
The time 'dimension' thing is just some interpreting the mathematical models as physically real.
Relativity deals with subjective times. So if each observer moves through a literal time dimension at different rates, how do they stay together?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Nov 2 2007, 03:02 PM)
Hi All,
QUOTE (timemind+)
Time does not exist it's only a perception of our minds trying to understand and cope with us shifting or sliding into new realities, every time we make decisions we are shifted into a new different parallel universe "reality".
Time exists independent of consciousness. Time is the dimension that separates events just as space separates objects. If there were no living entities in the universe, the energy we measure as the spectral lines of hydrogen and helium would have the same relationship.
Time exists independent of consciousness. Time is the dimension that separates events just as space separates objects. If there were no living entities in the universe, the energy we measure as the spectral lines of hydrogen and helium would have the same relationship.
The catch-22 in your theory is that in order to have an "event" you have to have an infinitesimal slice of time. Since no such thing exists, you cannot have an event. Without events, you cannot have a series of them.
Time is human (or biological), and exists as an artifact of our ability to create "memories" and irrelevant outside our perspective.
My senses tell me that I am in a single reality moving from past to future. What scientific data can you provide to dispute that sense data?
Moving from past to future? Physically moving? At what speed? Your memories tell you that things have happened, and your concept of time passage leads you to think of events that have not happened yet, those events are concidered to be in the future. You are not moving from point A (the past) to point B ( the future).
Photons move at the speed of light and define events that connect different points in spacetime "instantly" in its own frame of reference. Since a photon is traveling at light speed then it suffers the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. To the quantum (of an unobserved photon) the source and the sink are virtually in the one place and exist in the same instant of time.
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it. OK... there is radioactivity which is related to the weak force and there is the strong force but both of these occur on a different scale of the Universe and are unstable at long range. It is very possible that both are manefestations of a deeper level of electromagnetism and this association has been shown for the weak force and is highly suggestive of the strong force. The only other "force" is Gravity. I will note that Gravity and Electromagnetism both travel at the one speed and they both obey a similar law of attraction except that electromagnetism appears to be in a bipolar form while gravity and mass appear to be in a unipolar form.... Otherwise I would otherwise assume that they are derived from the one source of electromagnetism.
Clearly if we assume that all forces are mitigated by electromagnetism or some variant of it, including all the point to point forces like those between colliding billiard balls, then there is nothing happening at all when photons (virtual or real) are not interacting. The number and rate of these "events" is a measure of the activity of everything we see touch and experience. Of course for photons when they are not interacting they are in a quantum state and cannot be remotely observed. We can know that they are there but unless you actually "catch" them in a detector you can't predict where any of them are and as far as we know they may not really be there at all.
These quanta can't "leak" energy or alter in anyway whatsoever. They simply "spread" and they "interfere" but usually this activity is at a very subtle level. The "action" and the "dynamics" is entirely in the interaction between particles and these photons. This is a true definition of a quanta. A photon can cross the entire Universe without there being any change in its nature at all. We seem to notice that these unobserved photons travel as waves if we take a "sample" of them as particles. They interact apparently only as particles and only locally with other particles (point to point)... or so it would seem. One way to classify time would intuitively be to omit all the short range phenomena such as the weak and strong force and to include gravity and the presence of mass with electromagnetism and then say that these photon exchange events which are quantized and unobserved are the heartbeat of time itself. Without any electromagnetic interactions at all there are no forces and no actions due to them. without these actions and reactions we can't build working clocks to keep the time. Imagine a clock where nothing changed at all.then the time on the dial would not progress. Now assume that a single photon exchanged a force between two sections inside that clock ... suddenly we have Newton's Laws beginning to act. It will take a lot more than just one photon to make a clock "tick"... it will take a vast number of interactions throughout the entire body of that clock to create a smooth progress of events, even to hold the clock together, such that these forces can be recorded by the hands on that clock and cause it to move.
This also applies to everything we do and see. If the forces between the atomic particles in the Sun were to disappear then it will not necessarily implode, it will do nothing since there is no mass either if there are no interactions of attraction or repulsion. The particles making up the Universe would begin to behave like the photons themselves and simply pass through each other without forces. If all the photons remain interacting and "frozen in time and space" by their light speed motion, that is all that remains is the motion of all those photons and now those particles all traveling in straight lines since there are no longer any gravity or forces anywhere. Naturally this never happens but it is instructive to think about it if it did happen.... A whole lot of uninteracting photons. This just about describes the properties of neutrinos which can penetrate the heaviest Armour and pass through anything as if it was light through a pane of clear glass. Yet neutrinos are matter and photons are light the subtle difference alters the dynamics completely.
So my bet is these connections between source and sinks of single photons "joining" points in spacetime together in the frame of the photons "instantly" leads to our world of space and waves and particularly of time.
Since photons are mass less they cannot experience time since they are compelled to travel at only the speed of light. Logically if a photon is able to take on mass then it will experience time. It can do this by becoming a particle and enter into a particle creation event. A particle is simply a special configuration of a photon in which it is forced by some property of space to travel repeatedly through the same volume of space (like in a loop) thereby confining it to a locality in space. All particles that exhibit this property appear to have some mass.
We see that mass is indeed just a special confined state for light so gravity which is an extension of mass comes directly from this electromagnetism and are stresses in spacetime in which the external observer sees these entities as accelerating. The prime tenant of gravity is that acceleration due to gravitation is identical in every respect to acceleration due to inertial forces. This is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. What is wrong with this picture?? The anomaly with light is that it falls along the same path as matter traveling near the speed of light, even though it has no mass whatsoever. This once again betrays the true nature of gravity and mass as being electromagnetic in origin. It is highly suggestive that gravity has all of its origins in electromagnetism.
The remaining forces of electromagnetism come from the evanescent field and these are termed "virtual photons" which are photons that remain attached and at overall at rest relative to their sources in the "near field". These result in the forces between wires and magnets and the forces in electromagnetic machines.... Our technology.
But time seems to be the rate of events and these events are light force exchanges. Photons are after all the exchange particles of our Universe... It seems natural to associate these with time or at least the rate of time. I doubt if we can measure the different rates of time if these photon or even neutrino fluxes changed over time in any deep way. Changes in flux may only result in slight "disturbances" that cannot be recorded because what is it we can use to determine any irregularities but time itself.
Time seems to still progress even in the dark so exchanges are still occurring near absolute zero and metals where photons are still undergoing changes of state. I subscribe to Crammer's Event Driven Universe and we still not found any reliable way to count the absolute number of events anywhere in space in order to "keep things together".
However I have run out of time now and I must get some shut eye... See ya all!
Cheers
Dear good Elf, (A problem with your logic)
A photon does not ever know it is experiences any form of time dilation or length contraction. Only observers notice the extreme. The photon's imaginary brain thinks it is at rest.
Here is my out of the box understanding
There is a problem with current thought in terms of mathematics and energy. Although a photon is considered mass less or all a form of matter that allows us to keep our rules consistent it is substance and I believe it decays. You may be surprised to find someday that there is a common sense answer to many of the physics questions that are puzzling today.
In 1919, the Harvard physics dept conjectured that gravity is a byproduct of the other forces. Now think out of the box and conjecture with me that gravity is a form of radiation that cannot interact with anything else but itself and it is a decay product of all electromagnetic fields. That means that light, radiation, does age at an undetectable rate but not unnoticeable rate because the rate of decay is the essence of absolute time for each field. And furthermore space is the gravitational field continuously generated from all potential energy, including mass, into the gravitational wave. Now the field synchronization of the gravitational wave is the key to understanding the anomalies apparent in today's crazy thinking. Just thought I would give you a little push in the out of the box direction. Hope I didn't offend....... The reason light bends around a massive object is because the gravitational field that the photon generates synchronizes with the reference frame of the massive object's gravitational field. Since each reference frame creates it's own synchronizing field that is why the speed of light is constant. It is synchronizing through the lights gravitational field with the reference frames gravitational field.
Electromagnetism connects everything together... nothing happens at our level of the Universe without it. OK... there is radioactivity which is related to the weak force and there is the strong force but both of these occur on a different scale of the Universe and are unstable at long range. It is very possible that both are manefestations of a deeper level of electromagnetism and this association has been shown for the weak force and is highly suggestive of the strong force. The only other "force" is Gravity. I will note that Gravity and Electromagnetism both travel at the one speed and they both obey a similar law of attraction except that electromagnetism appears to be in a bipolar form while gravity and mass appear to be in a unipolar form.... Otherwise I would otherwise assume that they are derived from the one source of electromagnetism.
Clearly if we assume that all forces are mitigated by electromagnetism or some variant of it, including all the point to point forces like those between colliding billiard balls, then there is nothing happening at all when photons (virtual or real) are not interacting. The number and rate of these "events" is a measure of the activity of everything we see touch and experience. Of course for photons when they are not interacting they are in a quantum state and cannot be remotely observed. We can know that they are there but unless you actually "catch" them in a detector you can't predict where any of them are and as far as we know they may not really be there at all.
These quanta can't "leak" energy or alter in anyway whatsoever. They simply "spread" and they "interfere" but usually this activity is at a very subtle level. The "action" and the "dynamics" is entirely in the interaction between particles and these photons. This is a true definition of a quanta. A photon can cross the entire Universe without there being any change in its nature at all. We seem to notice that these unobserved photons travel as waves if we take a "sample" of them as particles. They interact apparently only as particles and only locally with other particles (point to point)... or so it would seem. One way to classify time would intuitively be to omit all the short range phenomena such as the weak and strong force and to include gravity and the presence of mass with electromagnetism and then say that these photon exchange events which are quantized and unobserved are the heartbeat of time itself. Without any electromagnetic interactions at all there are no forces and no actions due to them. without these actions and reactions we can't build working clocks to keep the time. Imagine a clock where nothing changed at all.then the time on the dial would not progress. Now assume that a single photon exchanged a force between two sections inside that clock ... suddenly we have Newton's Laws beginning to act. It will take a lot more than just one photon to make a clock "tick"... it will take a vast number of interactions throughout the entire body of that clock to create a smooth progress of events, even to hold the clock together, such that these forces can be recorded by the hands on that clock and cause it to move.
This also applies to everything we do and see. If the forces between the atomic particles in the Sun were to disappear then it will not necessarily implode, it will do nothing since there is no mass either if there are no interactions of attraction or repulsion. The particles making up the Universe would begin to behave like the photons themselves and simply pass through each other without forces. If all the photons remain interacting and "frozen in time and space" by their light speed motion, that is all that remains is the motion of all those photons and now those particles all traveling in straight lines since there are no longer any gravity or forces anywhere. Naturally this never happens but it is instructive to think about it if it did happen.... A whole lot of uninteracting photons. This just about describes the properties of neutrinos which can penetrate the heaviest Armour and pass through anything as if it was light through a pane of clear glass. Yet neutrinos are matter and photons are light the subtle difference alters the dynamics completely.
So my bet is these connections between source and sinks of single photons "joining" points in spacetime together in the frame of the photons "instantly" leads to our world of space and waves and particularly of time.
Since photons are mass less they cannot experience time since they are compelled to travel at only the speed of light. Logically if a photon is able to take on mass then it will experience time. It can do this by becoming a particle and enter into a particle creation event. A particle is simply a special configuration of a photon in which it is forced by some property of space to travel repeatedly through the same volume of space (like in a loop) thereby confining it to a locality in space. All particles that exhibit this property appear to have some mass.
We see that mass is indeed just a special confined state for light so gravity which is an extension of mass comes directly from this electromagnetism and are stresses in spacetime in which the external observer sees these entities as accelerating. The prime tenant of gravity is that acceleration due to gravitation is identical in every respect to acceleration due to inertial forces. This is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence. What is wrong with this picture?? The anomaly with light is that it falls along the same path as matter traveling near the speed of light, even though it has no mass whatsoever. This once again betrays the true nature of gravity and mass as being electromagnetic in origin. It is highly suggestive that gravity has all of its origins in electromagnetism.
The remaining forces of electromagnetism come from the evanescent field and these are termed "virtual photons" which are photons that remain attached and at overall at rest relative to their sources in the "near field". These result in the forces between wires and magnets and the forces in electromagnetic machines.... Our technology.
But time seems to be the rate of events and these events are light force exchanges. Photons are after all the exchange particles of our Universe... It seems natural to associate these with time or at least the rate of time. I doubt if we can measure the different rates of time if these photon or even neutrino fluxes changed over time in any deep way. Changes in flux may only result in slight "disturbances" that cannot be recorded because what is it we can use to determine any irregularities but time itself.
Time seems to still progress even in the dark so exchanges are still occurring near absolute zero and metals where photons are still undergoing changes of state. I subscribe to Crammer's Event Driven Universe and we still not found any reliable way to count the absolute number of events anywhere in space in order to "keep things together".
However I have run out of time now and I must get some shut eye... See ya all!
Cheers
Dear good Elf, (A problem with your logic)
A photon does not ever know it is experiences any form of time dilation or length contraction. Only observers notice the extreme. The photon's imaginary brain thinks it is at rest.
Here is my out of the box understanding
There is a problem with current thought in terms of mathematics and energy. Although a photon is considered mass less or all a form of matter that allows us to keep our rules consistent it is substance and I believe it decays. You may be surprised to find someday that there is a common sense answer to many of the physics questions that are puzzling today.
In 1919, the Harvard physics dept conjectured that gravity is a byproduct of the other forces. Now think out of the box and conjecture with me that gravity is a form of radiation that cannot interact with anything else but itself and it is a decay product of all electromagnetic fields. That means that light, radiation, does age at an undetectable rate but not unnoticeable rate because the rate of decay is the essence of absolute time for each field. And furthermore space is the gravitational field continuously generated from all potential energy, including mass, into the gravitational wave. Now the field synchronization of the gravitational wave is the key to understanding the anomalies apparent in today's crazy thinking. Just thought I would give you a little push in the out of the box direction. Hope I didn't offend....... The reason light bends around a massive object is because the gravitational field that the photon generates synchronizes with the reference frame of the massive object's gravitational field. Since each reference frame creates it's own synchronizing field that is why the speed of light is constant. It is synchronizing through the lights gravitational field with the reference frames gravitational field.
QUOTE
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
Time exists independent of consciousness. Time is the dimension that separates events just as space separates objects. If there were no living entities in the universe, the energy we measure as the spectral lines of hydrogen and helium would have the same relationship.
QUOTE (prometheus+Dec 3 2007, 10:49 PM)
I'm going to say this once only: E = mc^2 ONLY APPLIES TO PARTICLES AT REST
QUOTE (atomsview @ Dec 2 2007, 05:35 PM)
__________________________________________
How does the speed of light enter the equation for mass? The answer is found by applying deBroglie’s theorem and Einstein’s equation:
m x v = h / wavelength
E = m c c
(E / c x c) x v = h / wavelength
E = h x c x c / wavelength x v
E = ( h c / wavelength) (c / v)
Let c / v = n
__________________________________________
I'm going to say this once only: E = mc^2 ONLY APPLIES TO PARTICLES AT REST
This is important so I repeated your statement. The interesting thing with all energy equations is that they involve a time component. Mass or particles at rest then must be like a cold energy. Like the droplets in a super condensate.
For time to be a necessary component of every force and of matter at rest that makes time a most interesting component. In quantum the theorized chronon is a unit of mass. If it were a unit of force and flow then it could appear to have mass, just as it is the weight of water against the wall of a dam not the mass of water.
QUOTE (atomsview @ Dec 2 2007, 05:35 PM)
__________________________________________
How does the speed of light enter the equation for mass? The answer is found by applying deBroglie’s theorem and Einstein’s equation:
m x v = h / wavelength
E = m c c
(E / c x c) x v = h / wavelength
E = h x c x c / wavelength x v
E = ( h c / wavelength) (c / v)
Let c / v = n
__________________________________________
I'm going to say this once only: E = mc^2 ONLY APPLIES TO PARTICLES AT REST
This is important so I repeated your statement. The interesting thing with all energy equations is that they involve a time component. Mass or particles at rest then must be like a cold energy. Like the droplets in a super condensate.
For time to be a necessary component of every force and of matter at rest that makes time a most interesting component. In quantum the theorized chronon is a unit of mass. If it were a unit of force and flow then it could appear to have mass, just as it is the weight of water against the wall of a dam not the mass of water.
Hi Sentient Marine,
Note that when v = c, n will be 1, the equation becomes identical to the photon energy equation. This shows an equation for mass when v is less than c, and an equation for photons, in other words, there are two equations, and the boundary is c. You are correct, time is a factor, it is related to wavelength and velocity. Thanks for your thoughts.
Note that when v = c, n will be 1, the equation becomes identical to the photon energy equation. This shows an equation for mass when v is less than c, and an equation for photons, in other words, there are two equations, and the boundary is c. You are correct, time is a factor, it is related to wavelength and velocity. Thanks for your thoughts.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 20 2007, 07:32 AM)
Time exists independent of consciousness. Time is the dimension that separates events just as space separates objects. If there were no living entities in the universe, the energy we measure as the spectral lines of hydrogen and helium would have the same relationship.
The catch-22 in your theory is that in order to have an "event" you have to have an infinitesimal slice of time. Since no such thing exists, you cannot have an event. Without events, you cannot have a series of them.
Time is human (or biological), and exists as an artifact of our ability to create "memories" and irrelevant outside our perspective.
QUOTE (x646d63+Dec 20 2007, 03:57 PM)
The catch-22 in your theory is that in order to have an "event" you have to have an infinitesimal slice of time. Since no such thing exists, you cannot have an event. Without events, you cannot have a series of them.
Time is human (or biological), and exists as an artifact of our ability to create "memories" and irrelevant outside our perspective.
Got any evidence that time isn't quantized at the Planck Time?
Or that an "event" can't be defined as a range of time? Example: Event A happened at 12:32:41.239857623856563478 till 12:32:41.239857623874392659 which caused Event B, which happened at 12:32:42.000023478923457195 till 12:33:01.0295738921947829456
Time is human (or biological), and exists as an artifact of our ability to create "memories" and irrelevant outside our perspective.
Got any evidence that time isn't quantized at the Planck Time?
Or that an "event" can't be defined as a range of time? Example: Event A happened at 12:32:41.239857623856563478 till 12:32:41.239857623874392659 which caused Event B, which happened at 12:32:42.000023478923457195 till 12:33:01.0295738921947829456
Maybe this will provide more insight into passage of time and Planck's equation.
Let E = h (1 cycle / sec) for a photon.
Then E sec / h = 1 cycle
This shows that energy is divided into quantum units. Each cycle is 3 x 10^8 meters in length. Each cycle is one second in the passage of time.
Frequency and wavelength are continuous for photons. Each cycle of the photon is an exact reproduction of the previous cycle for plane waves. All photons will travel the same distance in one second. d = (wavelength x freg) x time, d = c t.
Let E = h (1 cycle / sec) for a photon.
Then E sec / h = 1 cycle
This shows that energy is divided into quantum units. Each cycle is 3 x 10^8 meters in length. Each cycle is one second in the passage of time.
Frequency and wavelength are continuous for photons. Each cycle of the photon is an exact reproduction of the previous cycle for plane waves. All photons will travel the same distance in one second. d = (wavelength x freg) x time, d = c t.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 20 2007, 09:59 PM)
Got any evidence that time isn't quantized at the Planck Time?
Or that an "event" can't be defined as a range of time? Example: Event A happened at 12:32:41.239857623856563478 till 12:32:41.239857623874392659 which caused Event B, which happened at 12:32:42.000023478923457195 till 12:33:01.0295738921947829456
PLank time is a man made unit of time. Max plank did not discover plank time.
Time is not a real physical thing. It has no atomic structure, and no energy source.
Or that an "event" can't be defined as a range of time? Example: Event A happened at 12:32:41.239857623856563478 till 12:32:41.239857623874392659 which caused Event B, which happened at 12:32:42.000023478923457195 till 12:33:01.0295738921947829456
PLank time is a man made unit of time. Max plank did not discover plank time.
Time is not a real physical thing. It has no atomic structure, and no energy source.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 01:38 PM)
You're talking about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics right? This is another area in which popular science has sold the theory somewhat short. Many worlds isn't anything to do with human decision making, but quantum probabilities.
Suppose you have an electron in the state |z up> + |z down> (with correct normalisation), and you want to measure it's z component of spin. You could find it's spin up or spin down with an equal probability of each. The most common interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen interpretation) is that the probabilities act like an average, so if you measure the spin of the electron many times you'll find equal instances of up and down.
In many worlds, if you measure the electrons spin and it's down, in an alternate reality the alternate you measures it as up. If you have a photon which can have 3 spin_z states -1, 0 and 1 there would be 3 realities etc.
Many worlds gets really interesting when you think about systems like atoms where there are infinitely many possible states.
Where is the definition that time is a real physical thing?
Suppose you have an electron in the state |z up> + |z down> (with correct normalisation), and you want to measure it's z component of spin. You could find it's spin up or spin down with an equal probability of each. The most common interpretation of QM (the Copenhagen interpretation) is that the probabilities act like an average, so if you measure the spin of the electron many times you'll find equal instances of up and down.
In many worlds, if you measure the electrons spin and it's down, in an alternate reality the alternate you measures it as up. If you have a photon which can have 3 spin_z states -1, 0 and 1 there would be 3 realities etc.
Many worlds gets really interesting when you think about systems like atoms where there are infinitely many possible states.
Where is the definition that time is a real physical thing?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 01:41 PM)
PS Time certainly does exist, whether our perception of it is how it really is or not is debatable.
Exist in what form? Does it have an atomic structure? Clocks and such do not measure time, they are not powered or motivated in any way by this time thing.
If time devices measured time than as time effected these machines they would move accordingly, but this is not the case. We have to wind them up, or put batteries in them in order for them to work. In what form does time exist?
Exist in what form? Does it have an atomic structure? Clocks and such do not measure time, they are not powered or motivated in any way by this time thing.
If time devices measured time than as time effected these machines they would move accordingly, but this is not the case. We have to wind them up, or put batteries in them in order for them to work. In what form does time exist?
QUOTE (timemind+Nov 2 2007, 11:14 PM)
To the gentleman below my comment, I believe there is a correlation between quantum probabilities human decision making "consciousness" and other worlds ,this other world exist solely for the purpose of our decision making process e.g free will when making a decision quantum probability comes into play to give out the outcome of our decisions; i believe this to be true; when this happens the outcome "event" we are then automatically shifted into a new world; where based on your decision that new "reality" is made to conform with your decision which converts into a us seeing a new reality.
I believe that this is the essence of what we perceive as time, what we feel as time passage, another example move your right hand quantum probability comes into play; move your left hand quantum probability also comes into play, the world around you changes; this change is a new world ,a new world reality where your right hand and left hand have moved, this new physical world reality has to conform to your decision making process or daily new events happening all around us every day. This shifting in and out of new realities "WORLDS" feels to us as "time passage" this is the only way our minds can comprehend these new realities..
This is all based on your personal beliefs, not on established science.
I believe that this is the essence of what we perceive as time, what we feel as time passage, another example move your right hand quantum probability comes into play; move your left hand quantum probability also comes into play, the world around you changes; this change is a new world ,a new world reality where your right hand and left hand have moved, this new physical world reality has to conform to your decision making process or daily new events happening all around us every day. This shifting in and out of new realities "WORLDS" feels to us as "time passage" this is the only way our minds can comprehend these new realities..
This is all based on your personal beliefs, not on established science.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Nov 6 2007, 09:10 AM)
My senses tell me that I am in a single reality moving from past to future. What scientific data can you provide to dispute that sense data?
Moving from past to future? Physically moving? At what speed? Your memories tell you that things have happened, and your concept of time passage leads you to think of events that have not happened yet, those events are concidered to be in the future. You are not moving from point A (the past) to point B ( the future).
QUOTE (heretic+Dec 21 2007, 12:43 AM)
Planck time is a man made unit of time. Max plank did not discover plank time.
Why don't you click on the link and actually learn what Planck Time is?
It's fundamental. It's the amount of time it takes a particle traveling at c to move one Planck Length, which is itself derived from the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. It's a fundamental unit because it's based on fundamental units which are, in turn, based on the behavior of the universe itself. I guarantee you this much: If we ever make contact with an extraterrestrial intelligent species whose level of development is at least the same as ours, then they will have the Planck Time, (though calling it by a different name) and it will be the exact same measure of time as our own.
Why don't you click on the link and actually learn what Planck Time is?
It's fundamental. It's the amount of time it takes a particle traveling at c to move one Planck Length, which is itself derived from the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. It's a fundamental unit because it's based on fundamental units which are, in turn, based on the behavior of the universe itself. I guarantee you this much: If we ever make contact with an extraterrestrial intelligent species whose level of development is at least the same as ours, then they will have the Planck Time, (though calling it by a different name) and it will be the exact same measure of time as our own.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 20 2007, 09:59 PM)
Got any evidence that time isn't quantized at the Planck Time?
Or that an "event" can't be defined as a range of time? Example: Event A happened at 12:32:41.239857623856563478 till 12:32:41.239857623874392659 which caused Event B, which happened at 12:32:42.000023478923457195 till 12:33:01.0295738921947829456
You are quantifying the change of the universe using your memory (and models.) You are saying that at some point in the past, the universe was different than it was now. A photon moved from A to B. You are using time to refer back to a previous state of the universe.
My argument is that time does not exist naturally, it's a derivative. We have derived time so that we can quantify universal change. And this desire to quantify change is actually a function of our biology (namely our memory) and our bias has greatly skewed to us the importance of "time."
Time is useful because it helps us model. So does mathematical notation. But neither seems to me to be an independent dimension or quality of the universe. They are simply tools we have created to help us understand our environment.
That doesn't mean that we can't universally and repeatedly derive Planck Time. We can, as has been demonstrated. But since special relativity seems to "break-down" beyond Planck Time, it seems to me that there's a problem with our understanding (aka the model) not that the universe doesn't experience constant (and fluent) change.
Or that an "event" can't be defined as a range of time? Example: Event A happened at 12:32:41.239857623856563478 till 12:32:41.239857623874392659 which caused Event B, which happened at 12:32:42.000023478923457195 till 12:33:01.0295738921947829456
You are quantifying the change of the universe using your memory (and models.) You are saying that at some point in the past, the universe was different than it was now. A photon moved from A to B. You are using time to refer back to a previous state of the universe.
My argument is that time does not exist naturally, it's a derivative. We have derived time so that we can quantify universal change. And this desire to quantify change is actually a function of our biology (namely our memory) and our bias has greatly skewed to us the importance of "time."
Time is useful because it helps us model. So does mathematical notation. But neither seems to me to be an independent dimension or quality of the universe. They are simply tools we have created to help us understand our environment.
That doesn't mean that we can't universally and repeatedly derive Planck Time. We can, as has been demonstrated. But since special relativity seems to "break-down" beyond Planck Time, it seems to me that there's a problem with our understanding (aka the model) not that the universe doesn't experience constant (and fluent) change.
QUOTE (x646d63+Dec 21 2007, 05:58 PM)
That doesn't mean that we can't universally and repeatedly derive Planck Time. We can, as has been demonstrated. But since special relativity seems to "break-down" beyond Planck Time, it seems to me that there's a problem with our understanding (aka the model) not that the universe doesn't experience constant (and fluent) change.
ahh, but quantum mechanics doesn't. Nor does string theory.
Now, your argument is one I've made before, and while I don't specifically believe it, I don't specifically DIS-believe it, either.
And I am not disagreeing with your argument, I'm disagreeing with your response to MeBigGuy's post, as well as pointing out a flaw in the above quoted point.
ahh, but quantum mechanics doesn't. Nor does string theory.
Now, your argument is one I've made before, and while I don't specifically believe it, I don't specifically DIS-believe it, either.
And I am not disagreeing with your argument, I'm disagreeing with your response to MeBigGuy's post, as well as pointing out a flaw in the above quoted point.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 21 2007, 11:44 PM)
ahh, but quantum mechanics doesn't. Nor does string theory.
Now, your argument is one I've made before, and while I don't specifically believe it, I don't specifically DIS-believe it, either.
And I am not disagreeing with your argument, I'm disagreeing with your response to MeBigGuy's post, as well as pointing out a flaw in the above quoted point.
Maybe this is a semantic problem with interpretation of the original post.
If time "separates" events, as he posted, then I assumed he was suggesting that an event has duration 0, i.e., a "snap-shot" of the universe at any given time, and that some amount of time separates these events (perhaps infinitely small, perhaps Planck).
If the time is infinitely small, well, then you can't sum it up to get from point A to point B. If the time is finite, but small, then the universe has to be "stepped" where during some duration there is no change, and then instantly there is change. And if change is instant then what's the point of the small delay?
So yes, I would agree that an event really has to have a duration > 0 in order to model change correctly. But I will suggest that an event that has duration > 0 is incorrect, because it's an average of change over that duration.
Obviously my arguments are philosophical, not mathematical. But Calculus, as useful as it is, I believe has further led us down this path of time. Because we can model a system using calculus and derive a "snap shot" at any time it has made us believe that the universe works in the same fashion. I don't think it does.
We can model it very closely, but never correctly using calculus and time.
Now, your argument is one I've made before, and while I don't specifically believe it, I don't specifically DIS-believe it, either.
And I am not disagreeing with your argument, I'm disagreeing with your response to MeBigGuy's post, as well as pointing out a flaw in the above quoted point.
Maybe this is a semantic problem with interpretation of the original post.
QUOTE
Time is the dimension that separates events just as space separates objects.
If time "separates" events, as he posted, then I assumed he was suggesting that an event has duration 0, i.e., a "snap-shot" of the universe at any given time, and that some amount of time separates these events (perhaps infinitely small, perhaps Planck).
If the time is infinitely small, well, then you can't sum it up to get from point A to point B. If the time is finite, but small, then the universe has to be "stepped" where during some duration there is no change, and then instantly there is change. And if change is instant then what's the point of the small delay?
So yes, I would agree that an event really has to have a duration > 0 in order to model change correctly. But I will suggest that an event that has duration > 0 is incorrect, because it's an average of change over that duration.
Obviously my arguments are philosophical, not mathematical. But Calculus, as useful as it is, I believe has further led us down this path of time. Because we can model a system using calculus and derive a "snap shot" at any time it has made us believe that the universe works in the same fashion. I don't think it does.
We can model it very closely, but never correctly using calculus and time.
QUOTE (x646d63+Dec 21 2007, 07:51 PM)
Maybe this is a semantic problem with interpretation of the original post.
I don't think so. I believe the rest of this post will explain my point.
You're missing a fundamental tenet of mathematics here. Between any two numbers, there are an infinite number of numbers. Here's a simple demonstration.
0-1 is a range of numbers. Zero and One. Between them there are an infinite amount of numbers.
0.1
0.2
0.3
There are 9 of these numbers, then
0.01
0.02
0.03
there are 90 of these numbers, then
0.001
0.002
0.003
There are 900 of these numbers...
and so on and so forth into infinity. That does not mean that the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite, it is not. The difference is only 1. Numbers can require an infinite number of digits, likes 0.9r (see the thread by that name, read carefully the posts by AlphaNumeric, Euler and Dallas, and those who agree with them) but that does not give them an infinite value. (in this case, the value is again, 1)
The same holds true for time. Even if there is no quantity of time, you can definitively measure a duration of it, as evidenced by the fact that we have done so.
The Planck Time is an example of a fundamental unit of time, which we have not (and likely will not ever) been able to measure below. Therefore, it could be argued that there is no unit of time smaller than a Planck Time. Even if there is, we could never directly measure it.
You're missing a fundamental tenet of mathematics here. Between any two numbers, there are an infinite number of numbers. Here's a simple demonstration.
0-1 is a range of numbers. Zero and One. Between them there are an infinite amount of numbers.
0.1
0.2
0.3
There are 9 of these numbers, then
0.01
0.02
0.03
there are 90 of these numbers, then
0.001
0.002
0.003
There are 900 of these numbers...
and so on and so forth into infinity. That does not mean that the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite, it is not. The difference is only 1. Numbers can require an infinite number of digits, likes 0.9r (see the thread by that name, read carefully the posts by AlphaNumeric, Euler and Dallas, and those who agree with them) but that does not give them an infinite value. (in this case, the value is again, 1)
The same holds true for time. Even if there is no quantity of time, you can definitively measure a duration of it, as evidenced by the fact that we have done so.
The Planck Time is an example of a fundamental unit of time, which we have not (and likely will not ever) been able to measure below. Therefore, it could be argued that there is no unit of time smaller than a Planck Time. Even if there is, we could never directly measure it.
So yes, I would agree that an event really has to have a duration > 0 in order to model change correctly. But I will suggest that an event that has duration > 0 is incorrect, because it's an average of change over that duration.
As I said before, an event could quite easily have a duration of 1, if the Planck Time is the quanta of time, which would be similar to saying that an event would have a duration of 0 in a non-quantitative theory of time.
Consider this: Time as a dimension is hard to swallow for many people I know, because of the arrow of time. "Why doesn't effect ever precede cause? Why doesn't a glass ever shatter before you knock it off the table?"
I've heard these arguments several times before, and my answer is that perhaps what we perceive of as cause and effect might actually be considered effect and cause, respectively? Why can't the shattering of the glass be the cause of you knocking it off the table, and our minds are designed to only perceive our motion in the forward direction? It is a possibility that I sometimes think about, one which I neither agree nor disagree with, but sometimes use to illustrate a point, as now. However, even if one agrees with this, then time still certainly exists: It is a dimension through which we can only perceive motion in one direction.
It's fundamental. It's the amount of time it takes a particle traveling at c to move one Planck Length, which is itself derived from the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. It's a fundamental unit because it's based on fundamental units which are, in turn, based on the behavior of the universe itself.
All of these units of measurement are man made. That includes the measurement of time. Where does any of this say that time is a real physical thing?
My argument is that time does not exist naturally, it's a derivative. We have derived time so that we can quantify universal change. And this desire to quantify change is actually a function of our biology (namely our memory) and our bias has greatly skewed to us the importance of "time."
Time is useful because it helps us model. So does mathematical notation. But neither seems to me to be an independent dimension or quality of the universe. They are simply tools we have created to help us understand our environment.
That doesn't mean that we can't universally and repeatedly derive Planck Time. We can, as has been demonstrated. But since special relativity seems to "break-down" beyond Planck Time, it seems to me that there's a problem with our understanding (aka the model) not that the universe doesn't experience constant (and fluent) change.
Time does not exist naturally? Are you saying that it is man made?
You say time is a derivative, a derivative of what? Sounds like you are saying that this thing called time is a physical thing that is a byproduct of some process. Where are you getting this data that time is a derivative?
I understand exactly about infinite precision. It is this, in fact, that I believe helps me make my point.
I'm not arguing that you can't measure a finite duration of time. You can; it's obvious. What I'm arguing is that time is only a tool. It is not an intrinsic quality of the universe. It is irrelevant, in fact, to the nature of the universe and is useful only in our modeling of it.
My argument for the non-existence of a "timeline" is the simple fact that although we can use calculus to model with infinite precision, such things are not possible in "real life." There is no "moment in time", and Planck Time should be evidence of that.
If change in the universe cannot be measured with precision greater than Planck Time, then that would suggest that Planck Time is the "step" of time.
Logical arguments against "stepped time" are obvious, primarily that at some point there has to be change. If the change occurs over the duration of Planck Time, then the universe isn't stepped and Planck Time isn't the step. If the step is smaller than Planck Time, then there's a problem with Planck Time.
So the change has to be instant (taking no "time"). But if change is instant (taking no time) then you can't create a series of them to model the universe. A sum of zeros is always zero--even an infinite number of them. So, if "time" exists, it has to be stepped. But any step can be cut in half, so it can't be the smallest measure of time.
Since this is certainly an age-old argument, made by zillions of people much smarter than me, I won't go there. What I will say (which is new to me, but I won't claim to be novel) is that this is evidence that either time does not exist as an intrinsic quality of the universe (as it seems to fail any logical existence) OR mathematics is not good enough to model the universe correctly (or too precise?)
As an aside, I will continue to argue that we don't measure time--we use time to measure change. Planck Time represents the smallest measurable change in state of the universe (or of an object within the universe.)
I understand exactly about infinite precision. It is this, in fact, that I believe helps me make my point.
I'm not arguing that you can't measure a finite duration of time. You can; it's obvious. What I'm arguing is that time is only a tool. It is not an intrinsic quality of the universe. It is irrelevant, in fact, to the nature of the universe and is useful only in our modeling of it.
My argument for the non-existence of a "timeline" is the simple fact that although we can use calculus to model with infinite precision, such things are not possible in "real life." There is no "moment in time", and Planck Time should be evidence of that.
If change in the universe cannot be measured with precision greater than Planck Time, then that would suggest that Planck Time is the "step" of time.
Logical arguments against "stepped time" are obvious, primarily that at some point there has to be change. If the change occurs over the duration of Planck Time, then the universe isn't stepped and Planck Time isn't the step. If the step is smaller than Planck Time, then there's a problem with Planck Time.
So the change has to be instant (taking no "time"). But if change is instant (taking no time) then you can't create a series of them to model the universe. A sum of zeros is always zero--even an infinite number of them. So, if "time" exists, it has to be stepped. But any step can be cut in half, so it can't be the smallest measure of time.
Since this is certainly an age-old argument, made by zillions of people much smarter than me, I won't go there. What I will say (which is new to me, but I won't claim to be novel) is that this is evidence that either time does not exist as an intrinsic quality of the universe (as it seems to fail any logical existence) OR mathematics is not good enough to model the universe correctly (or too precise?)
As an aside, I will continue to argue that we don't measure time--we use time to measure change. Planck Time represents the smallest measurable change in state of the universe (or of an object within the universe.)
Consider this: Time as a dimension is hard to swallow for many people I know, because of the arrow of time. "Why doesn't effect ever precede cause? Why doesn't a glass ever shatter before you knock it off the table?"
As for the "direction" of time, that has never been a problem with me. After all, many things are uni-directional (like the flow of hot to cold.) Cause and effect seems obvious. In fact, the direction of time may be even easier for me to comprehend since I don't think time exists...
Finally, I have witnessed a glass shattering before it's knocked off a table. My labrador's tail was wicked when he was happy, and it was exactly coffee-table height...leading to several shattered glasses!
Happy Holidays.
I don't think so. I believe the rest of this post will explain my point.
QUOTE
If time "separates" events, as he posted, then I assumed he was suggesting that an event has duration 0, i.e., a "snap-shot" of the universe at any given time, and that some amount of time separates these events (perhaps infinitely small, perhaps Planck).
If the time is infinitely small, well, then you can't sum it up to get from point A to point B. If the time is finite, but small, then the universe has to be "stepped" where during some duration there is no change, and then instantly there is change. And if change is instant then what's the point of the small delay?
If the time is infinitely small, well, then you can't sum it up to get from point A to point B. If the time is finite, but small, then the universe has to be "stepped" where during some duration there is no change, and then instantly there is change. And if change is instant then what's the point of the small delay?
You're missing a fundamental tenet of mathematics here. Between any two numbers, there are an infinite number of numbers. Here's a simple demonstration.
0-1 is a range of numbers. Zero and One. Between them there are an infinite amount of numbers.
0.1
0.2
0.3
There are 9 of these numbers, then
0.01
0.02
0.03
there are 90 of these numbers, then
0.001
0.002
0.003
There are 900 of these numbers...
and so on and so forth into infinity. That does not mean that the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite, it is not. The difference is only 1. Numbers can require an infinite number of digits, likes 0.9r (see the thread by that name, read carefully the posts by AlphaNumeric, Euler and Dallas, and those who agree with them) but that does not give them an infinite value. (in this case, the value is again, 1)
The same holds true for time. Even if there is no quantity of time, you can definitively measure a duration of it, as evidenced by the fact that we have done so.
The Planck Time is an example of a fundamental unit of time, which we have not (and likely will not ever) been able to measure below. Therefore, it could be argued that there is no unit of time smaller than a Planck Time. Even if there is, we could never directly measure it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If time "separates" events, as he posted, then I assumed he was suggesting that an event has duration 0, i.e., a "snap-shot" of the universe at any given time, and that some amount of time separates these events (perhaps infinitely small, perhaps Planck). If the time is infinitely small, well, then you can't sum it up to get from point A to point B. If the time is finite, but small, then the universe has to be "stepped" where during some duration there is no change, and then instantly there is change. And if change is instant then what's the point of the small delay? |
You're missing a fundamental tenet of mathematics here. Between any two numbers, there are an infinite number of numbers. Here's a simple demonstration.
0-1 is a range of numbers. Zero and One. Between them there are an infinite amount of numbers.
0.1
0.2
0.3
There are 9 of these numbers, then
0.01
0.02
0.03
there are 90 of these numbers, then
0.001
0.002
0.003
There are 900 of these numbers...
and so on and so forth into infinity. That does not mean that the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite, it is not. The difference is only 1. Numbers can require an infinite number of digits, likes 0.9r (see the thread by that name, read carefully the posts by AlphaNumeric, Euler and Dallas, and those who agree with them) but that does not give them an infinite value. (in this case, the value is again, 1)
The same holds true for time. Even if there is no quantity of time, you can definitively measure a duration of it, as evidenced by the fact that we have done so.
The Planck Time is an example of a fundamental unit of time, which we have not (and likely will not ever) been able to measure below. Therefore, it could be argued that there is no unit of time smaller than a Planck Time. Even if there is, we could never directly measure it.
So yes, I would agree that an event really has to have a duration > 0 in order to model change correctly. But I will suggest that an event that has duration > 0 is incorrect, because it's an average of change over that duration.
As I said before, an event could quite easily have a duration of 1, if the Planck Time is the quanta of time, which would be similar to saying that an event would have a duration of 0 in a non-quantitative theory of time.
QUOTE
Obviously my arguments are philosophical, not mathematical. But Calculus, as useful as it is, I believe has further led us down this path of time. Because we can model a system using calculus and derive a "snap shot" at any time it has made us believe that the universe works in the same fashion. I don't think it does.
We can model it very closely, but never correctly using calculus and time.
We can model it very closely, but never correctly using calculus and time.
Consider this: Time as a dimension is hard to swallow for many people I know, because of the arrow of time. "Why doesn't effect ever precede cause? Why doesn't a glass ever shatter before you knock it off the table?"
I've heard these arguments several times before, and my answer is that perhaps what we perceive of as cause and effect might actually be considered effect and cause, respectively? Why can't the shattering of the glass be the cause of you knocking it off the table, and our minds are designed to only perceive our motion in the forward direction? It is a possibility that I sometimes think about, one which I neither agree nor disagree with, but sometimes use to illustrate a point, as now. However, even if one agrees with this, then time still certainly exists: It is a dimension through which we can only perceive motion in one direction.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 21 2007, 05:22 PM)
It's fundamental. It's the amount of time it takes a particle traveling at c to move one Planck Length, which is itself derived from the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. It's a fundamental unit because it's based on fundamental units which are, in turn, based on the behavior of the universe itself.
All of these units of measurement are man made. That includes the measurement of time. Where does any of this say that time is a real physical thing?
QUOTE (x646d63+Dec 21 2007, 10:58 PM)
My argument is that time does not exist naturally, it's a derivative. We have derived time so that we can quantify universal change. And this desire to quantify change is actually a function of our biology (namely our memory) and our bias has greatly skewed to us the importance of "time."
Time is useful because it helps us model. So does mathematical notation. But neither seems to me to be an independent dimension or quality of the universe. They are simply tools we have created to help us understand our environment.
That doesn't mean that we can't universally and repeatedly derive Planck Time. We can, as has been demonstrated. But since special relativity seems to "break-down" beyond Planck Time, it seems to me that there's a problem with our understanding (aka the model) not that the universe doesn't experience constant (and fluent) change.
Time does not exist naturally? Are you saying that it is man made?
You say time is a derivative, a derivative of what? Sounds like you are saying that this thing called time is a physical thing that is a byproduct of some process. Where are you getting this data that time is a derivative?
QUOTE (heretic+Dec 21 2007, 10:18 PM)
All of these units of measurement are man made. That includes the measurement of time. Where does any of this say that time is a real physical thing?
WHAT?!?!? YOU'VE DESTROYED THE WORLD OF PHYSICS!!!!
You honestly think c is a man-made value? Seriously, dude, check out the link I provided earlier.
The Planck measurements are fundemental. Period. The evidence of one has been presented, and needs only be reviewed. The evidence for the rest of the Planck measurements is linked to the provided evidence.
WHAT?!?!? YOU'VE DESTROYED THE WORLD OF PHYSICS!!!!
You honestly think c is a man-made value? Seriously, dude, check out the link I provided earlier.
The Planck measurements are fundemental. Period. The evidence of one has been presented, and needs only be reviewed. The evidence for the rest of the Planck measurements is linked to the provided evidence.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 22 2007, 07:07 AM)
WHAT?!?!? YOU'VE DESTROYED THE WORLD OF PHYSICS!!!!
You honestly think c is a man-made value? Seriously, dude, check out the link I provided earlier.
The Planck measurements are fundemental. Period. The evidence of one has been presented, and needs only be reviewed. The evidence for the rest of the Planck measurements is linked to the provided evidence.
If c is not a man made value, then where did it come from? Is this c value a naturally occurring value? If man is not responsible for this mathematical value, then what is? Where did this value come from? Did it also get created by the Big Bang? If it is not a man made concept , then what is this value made of?
Explain how this c value is not man made.
You honestly think c is a man-made value? Seriously, dude, check out the link I provided earlier.
The Planck measurements are fundemental. Period. The evidence of one has been presented, and needs only be reviewed. The evidence for the rest of the Planck measurements is linked to the provided evidence.
If c is not a man made value, then where did it come from? Is this c value a naturally occurring value? If man is not responsible for this mathematical value, then what is? Where did this value come from? Did it also get created by the Big Bang? If it is not a man made concept , then what is this value made of?
Explain how this c value is not man made.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 22 2007, 01:23 AM)
QUOTE
You're missing a fundamental tenet of mathematics here. Between any two numbers, there are an infinite number of numbers. Here's a simple demonstration...
I understand exactly about infinite precision. It is this, in fact, that I believe helps me make my point.
I'm not arguing that you can't measure a finite duration of time. You can; it's obvious. What I'm arguing is that time is only a tool. It is not an intrinsic quality of the universe. It is irrelevant, in fact, to the nature of the universe and is useful only in our modeling of it.
My argument for the non-existence of a "timeline" is the simple fact that although we can use calculus to model with infinite precision, such things are not possible in "real life." There is no "moment in time", and Planck Time should be evidence of that.
If change in the universe cannot be measured with precision greater than Planck Time, then that would suggest that Planck Time is the "step" of time.
Logical arguments against "stepped time" are obvious, primarily that at some point there has to be change. If the change occurs over the duration of Planck Time, then the universe isn't stepped and Planck Time isn't the step. If the step is smaller than Planck Time, then there's a problem with Planck Time.
So the change has to be instant (taking no "time"). But if change is instant (taking no time) then you can't create a series of them to model the universe. A sum of zeros is always zero--even an infinite number of them. So, if "time" exists, it has to be stepped. But any step can be cut in half, so it can't be the smallest measure of time.
Since this is certainly an age-old argument, made by zillions of people much smarter than me, I won't go there. What I will say (which is new to me, but I won't claim to be novel) is that this is evidence that either time does not exist as an intrinsic quality of the universe (as it seems to fail any logical existence) OR mathematics is not good enough to model the universe correctly (or too precise?)
As an aside, I will continue to argue that we don't measure time--we use time to measure change. Planck Time represents the smallest measurable change in state of the universe (or of an object within the universe.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're missing a fundamental tenet of mathematics here. Between any two numbers, there are an infinite number of numbers. Here's a simple demonstration... |
I understand exactly about infinite precision. It is this, in fact, that I believe helps me make my point.
I'm not arguing that you can't measure a finite duration of time. You can; it's obvious. What I'm arguing is that time is only a tool. It is not an intrinsic quality of the universe. It is irrelevant, in fact, to the nature of the universe and is useful only in our modeling of it.
My argument for the non-existence of a "timeline" is the simple fact that although we can use calculus to model with infinite precision, such things are not possible in "real life." There is no "moment in time", and Planck Time should be evidence of that.
If change in the universe cannot be measured with precision greater than Planck Time, then that would suggest that Planck Time is the "step" of time.
Logical arguments against "stepped time" are obvious, primarily that at some point there has to be change. If the change occurs over the duration of Planck Time, then the universe isn't stepped and Planck Time isn't the step. If the step is smaller than Planck Time, then there's a problem with Planck Time.
So the change has to be instant (taking no "time"). But if change is instant (taking no time) then you can't create a series of them to model the universe. A sum of zeros is always zero--even an infinite number of them. So, if "time" exists, it has to be stepped. But any step can be cut in half, so it can't be the smallest measure of time.
Since this is certainly an age-old argument, made by zillions of people much smarter than me, I won't go there. What I will say (which is new to me, but I won't claim to be novel) is that this is evidence that either time does not exist as an intrinsic quality of the universe (as it seems to fail any logical existence) OR mathematics is not good enough to model the universe correctly (or too precise?)
As an aside, I will continue to argue that we don't measure time--we use time to measure change. Planck Time represents the smallest measurable change in state of the universe (or of an object within the universe.)
Consider this: Time as a dimension is hard to swallow for many people I know, because of the arrow of time. "Why doesn't effect ever precede cause? Why doesn't a glass ever shatter before you knock it off the table?"
As for the "direction" of time, that has never been a problem with me. After all, many things are uni-directional (like the flow of hot to cold.) Cause and effect seems obvious. In fact, the direction of time may be even easier for me to comprehend since I don't think time exists...
Finally, I have witnessed a glass shattering before it's knocked off a table. My labrador's tail was wicked when he was happy, and it was exactly coffee-table height...leading to several shattered glasses!
Happy Holidays.
QUOTE (heretic+Dec 22 2007, 03:25 AM)
Time does not exist naturally? Are you saying that it is man made?
You say time is a derivative, a derivative of what? Sounds like you are saying that this thing called time is a physical thing that is a byproduct of some process. Where are you getting this data that time is a derivative?
Well, I'm saying that time can be derived from measuring the change of objects that show consistent and identifiable qualities. Planck Time, for example, is a derivative of the universe, because it appears to be regular and consistent.
I don't believe time is an intrinsic quality of the universe and is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
You say time is a derivative, a derivative of what? Sounds like you are saying that this thing called time is a physical thing that is a byproduct of some process. Where are you getting this data that time is a derivative?
Well, I'm saying that time can be derived from measuring the change of objects that show consistent and identifiable qualities. Planck Time, for example, is a derivative of the universe, because it appears to be regular and consistent.
I don't believe time is an intrinsic quality of the universe and is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
QUOTE (x646d63+Dec 23 2007, 02:24 AM)
Well, I'm saying that time can be derived from measuring the change of objects that show consistent and identifiable qualities. Planck Time, for example, is a derivative of the universe, because it appears to be regular and consistent.
I don't believe time is an intrinsic quality of the universe and is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
Time is derived from measuring the change of objects. Who is doing this deriving? Man. Time is a man made concept, time is not a physical thing. This thing called time is not a physical thing that man is measuring, man is has codified his universe with numbers. Time is just another number, or system of numbers that man invented to help put control in his world. The concept of time is a man made invention, not a measurement of a physical thing.
Plank time is a derivative of the universe? That is a broad general statement. Max Plank extracted this thing called Plank time from the universe? How did he do this? From what part of the universe? What do you mean by this statement?
I don't believe time is an intrinsic quality of the universe and is irrelevant to how the universe operates.
Time is derived from measuring the change of objects. Who is doing this deriving? Man. Time is a man made concept, time is not a physical thing. This thing called time is not a physical thing that man is measuring, man is has codified his universe with numbers. Time is just another number, or system of numbers that man invented to help put control in his world. The concept of time is a man made invention, not a measurement of a physical thing.
Plank time is a derivative of the universe? That is a broad general statement. Max Plank extracted this thing called Plank time from the universe? How did he do this? From what part of the universe? What do you mean by this statement?
QUOTE (heretic+Dec 22 2007, 03:01 PM)
If c is not a man made value, then where did it come from?
It arose from the properties of the universe in some unknown way.
Yes. The speed of light through a vacuum is always c.
Yes. The speed of light through a vacuum is always c.
If man is not responsible for this mathematical value, then what is?
God if you're religions, The Fundamental Nature of the Universe, if you're not.
Already answered it.
Already answered it.
Did it also get created by the Big Bang?
Doubtful.
Numbers.
Numbers.
Explain how this c value is not man made.
Ahhhhh! HERE we have the RIGHT question.
The speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant. This means that it is universal throughout both space and time. The speed of light in a vacuum ( c ) here on earth is the same as it is on mars, which is the same as c in the Andromeda galaxy, and it has always been the same since at least the Planck Epoch. The actual numbers we use to represent this speed (299,792,458 meters per second) are not that important, and there is nothing fundamental about that particular sequence of numbers (as long as we ignore the fact that they represent a fundamental value.) We humans use a base-10 numerical system, which means that we have ten numerals, then we add an extra digit, starting at the first numeral (1) and each time the original numeral moves higher than 9, we increase the second by 1, and when that reaches higher than 9, we add a third numeral, and so on and so forth. We could represent numbers using a binary system, but that would take up too much space.
I.E. 1111111111111111111111111111 is how to represent 28 in non-computer related binary. We could also use a base-4 system, in which continually increasing the value by 1 yields a progression like this:
0
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
20
21
22
23
30... and so on and so forth. The number 30 at the end actually corresponds to the value 12 (represented -of course- in our usual base-10 system.)
In short, the number used to represent the value of c is not important at all, and is completely man made. The actual value of c, tho, is quite fundamental. I believe this article can help...
Wikipedia - Speed of Light
I disagree.
1. Time is the dimension or dimensions that separate events. We measure time, sure, but it exists independent of us.
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
3. At the planck time/size level, all is fuzzy, so lets skip that for now.
I disagree.
1. Time is the dimension or dimensions that separate events. We measure time, sure, but it exists independent of us.
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
3. At the planck time/size level, all is fuzzy, so lets skip that for now.
Time is just another number, or system of numbers that man invented to help put control in his world
I think not. Man's understanding of time allows him to survive. His ability to predict, judge and sense relative to time is very real. But to say he INVENTED the dimension between events seems pretty radical. (and not a very practical concept, even philosophically). You could have just as easily said SPACE was invented by man. Or, that existance is only in the mind (idealism). Or, you could read Bertrand Russell to see why idealism doesn't work.
Separates how? When you move your finger up and down where is this physical separation taking place? Explain what you mean please.
Exists in what type of form? The whole universe is full of things that exist independent of us. Are you suggesting time is one of these things? All the things that exist independent of us also have a location, and have a mass. Are you suggesting that this is true for time?
Separates how? When you move your finger up and down where is this physical separation taking place? Explain what you mean please.
Exists in what type of form? The whole universe is full of things that exist independent of us. Are you suggesting time is one of these things? All the things that exist independent of us also have a location, and have a mass. Are you suggesting that this is true for time?
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
Space separates objects how? Physically? Does it push or pull things apart?
I can push objects together and they do not separate on their own. Try it.
When I move objects together or apart I do not feel any resistance to this motion.
Is there actually a scientific definition that states that space separates objects?
What is the term given to this action, since I would think that someone has measured this effect. So all I need to do to move an object is to add or subtract space between it and a nearby object. Have you seen this phenomenon of space separating objects?
When you say dimensions, are you talking about spatial dimensions? If so, tell me what established scientific reference states that spatial dimensions are real physical things that are part of the separation of objects. Where did you get this data? Have you ever observed space causing this effect?
All that you said here, are they things that you read about and accepted as truth without question or rigorous scientific testing? Or have you experienced these things and have personal knowledge of these extra forces that effect other objects and events?
What about all the other living things that do not share man’s understanding of time? How are they surviving? Not all people have the same understanding of time, yet they survive.
What about all the other living things that do not share man’s understanding of time? How are they surviving? Not all people have the same understanding of time, yet they survive.
But to say he INVENTED the dimension between events seems pretty radical.
I did not say man invented the dimension between events. You are the one talking about dimensions. I would say that what you have said about space and time seem pretty radical since what you claim is not backed up by direct observation or scientific testing
Space is not a thing that could be invented. It is the term given to that area between objects. Tell me, how does this thing that separates objects get into your computer and put space between these letters? Does it travel over the internet? Where does this space thing get its energy to separate objects?
It arose from the properties of the universe in some unknown way.
QUOTE
Is this c value a naturally occurring value?
Yes. The speed of light through a vacuum is always c.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is this c value a naturally occurring value? |
Yes. The speed of light through a vacuum is always c.
If man is not responsible for this mathematical value, then what is?
God if you're religions, The Fundamental Nature of the Universe, if you're not.
QUOTE
Where did this value come from?
Already answered it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Where did this value come from? |
Already answered it.
Did it also get created by the Big Bang?
Doubtful.
QUOTE
If it is not a man made concept , then what is this value made of?
Numbers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it is not a man made concept , then what is this value made of? |
Numbers.
Explain how this c value is not man made.
Ahhhhh! HERE we have the RIGHT question.
The speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant. This means that it is universal throughout both space and time. The speed of light in a vacuum ( c ) here on earth is the same as it is on mars, which is the same as c in the Andromeda galaxy, and it has always been the same since at least the Planck Epoch. The actual numbers we use to represent this speed (299,792,458 meters per second) are not that important, and there is nothing fundamental about that particular sequence of numbers (as long as we ignore the fact that they represent a fundamental value.) We humans use a base-10 numerical system, which means that we have ten numerals, then we add an extra digit, starting at the first numeral (1) and each time the original numeral moves higher than 9, we increase the second by 1, and when that reaches higher than 9, we add a third numeral, and so on and so forth. We could represent numbers using a binary system, but that would take up too much space.
I.E. 1111111111111111111111111111 is how to represent 28 in non-computer related binary. We could also use a base-4 system, in which continually increasing the value by 1 yields a progression like this:
0
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
20
21
22
23
30... and so on and so forth. The number 30 at the end actually corresponds to the value 12 (represented -of course- in our usual base-10 system.)
In short, the number used to represent the value of c is not important at all, and is completely man made. The actual value of c, tho, is quite fundamental. I believe this article can help...
Wikipedia - Speed of Light
QUOTE
Time is a man made concept, time is not a physical thing
I disagree.
1. Time is the dimension or dimensions that separate events. We measure time, sure, but it exists independent of us.
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
3. At the planck time/size level, all is fuzzy, so lets skip that for now.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Time is a man made concept, time is not a physical thing |
I disagree.
1. Time is the dimension or dimensions that separate events. We measure time, sure, but it exists independent of us.
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
3. At the planck time/size level, all is fuzzy, so lets skip that for now.
Time is just another number, or system of numbers that man invented to help put control in his world
I think not. Man's understanding of time allows him to survive. His ability to predict, judge and sense relative to time is very real. But to say he INVENTED the dimension between events seems pretty radical. (and not a very practical concept, even philosophically). You could have just as easily said SPACE was invented by man. Or, that existance is only in the mind (idealism). Or, you could read Bertrand Russell to see why idealism doesn't work.
BigDumbWeirdo, You say the value of C arose from the properties of the universe in some unknown way. Arose how? In what way? Did man have a hand in this, or did the value of C arise by itself? This value arose from what specific properties of the universe?
Unknown way? You know that it arose, but you do not know how? Nobody knows how?
Lets get to the basics here. Letters are man-made symbols used to represent ideas, and concepts. The letter C is used by man in many different ways to communicate many different ideas and concepts. The letter C is a symbol that is given a significance or meaning by man. These meanings are applied to this and all the other symbols by man. Man decides what these man-made symbols will mean according to how he wants to use them. The value of C does not tell man what it means, man assigns the meaning to the value of C. In fact the word value is a man-made concept. So the value of C is completely man-made. Numbers are also man-made symbols invented by man as a tool to communicate the concept of quantity. Numbers and equations do not create things in the real world. Numbers were not naturally occurring before man.
You explained that the value of C is not man made by using numbers to prove your point. Numbers are man-made. If you want to prove that the value of C is not man-made, then you would have to give some example of this value actually existing in nature like all the other things in this universe that were here before man, or can exist without man.
I also posed the question “If man is not responsible for this mathematical value, then what is”
Your answer was “God if your religious, the Fundamental Nature of the Universe if your not.”
So which is it? If the value is a real thing then how is it that its source is dependent on the belief or what one thinks. Belief or thought is responsible for the origin of the value of C? If this value is a real thing then science can describe it.
Are you saying that God could have made this value? Which God?
When did God become the source of a mathematical value? Is he responsible for all the values?
Did you honestly mean to say that it is possible that this value could have come from two completely different sources, depending on what one believes or thinks? What kind of logical scientific thought process is that?
Again, time is a man-made concept. It involves numbers and a man-made system of using these numbers. Time is not a thing that moves or motivates these man-made time pieces. All time pieces are machines set up by man to run and give the required result that he wants.
Unknown way? You know that it arose, but you do not know how? Nobody knows how?
Lets get to the basics here. Letters are man-made symbols used to represent ideas, and concepts. The letter C is used by man in many different ways to communicate many different ideas and concepts. The letter C is a symbol that is given a significance or meaning by man. These meanings are applied to this and all the other symbols by man. Man decides what these man-made symbols will mean according to how he wants to use them. The value of C does not tell man what it means, man assigns the meaning to the value of C. In fact the word value is a man-made concept. So the value of C is completely man-made. Numbers are also man-made symbols invented by man as a tool to communicate the concept of quantity. Numbers and equations do not create things in the real world. Numbers were not naturally occurring before man.
You explained that the value of C is not man made by using numbers to prove your point. Numbers are man-made. If you want to prove that the value of C is not man-made, then you would have to give some example of this value actually existing in nature like all the other things in this universe that were here before man, or can exist without man.
I also posed the question “If man is not responsible for this mathematical value, then what is”
Your answer was “God if your religious, the Fundamental Nature of the Universe if your not.”
So which is it? If the value is a real thing then how is it that its source is dependent on the belief or what one thinks. Belief or thought is responsible for the origin of the value of C? If this value is a real thing then science can describe it.
Are you saying that God could have made this value? Which God?
When did God become the source of a mathematical value? Is he responsible for all the values?
Did you honestly mean to say that it is possible that this value could have come from two completely different sources, depending on what one believes or thinks? What kind of logical scientific thought process is that?
Again, time is a man-made concept. It involves numbers and a man-made system of using these numbers. Time is not a thing that moves or motivates these man-made time pieces. All time pieces are machines set up by man to run and give the required result that he wants.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 23 2007, 08:18 AM)
QUOTE
1. Time is the dimension or dimensions that separate events. We measure time, sure, but it exists independent of us.
Separates how? When you move your finger up and down where is this physical separation taking place? Explain what you mean please.
Exists in what type of form? The whole universe is full of things that exist independent of us. Are you suggesting time is one of these things? All the things that exist independent of us also have a location, and have a mass. Are you suggesting that this is true for time?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Time is the dimension or dimensions that separate events. We measure time, sure, but it exists independent of us. |
Separates how? When you move your finger up and down where is this physical separation taking place? Explain what you mean please.
Exists in what type of form? The whole universe is full of things that exist independent of us. Are you suggesting time is one of these things? All the things that exist independent of us also have a location, and have a mass. Are you suggesting that this is true for time?
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
Space separates objects how? Physically? Does it push or pull things apart?
I can push objects together and they do not separate on their own. Try it.
When I move objects together or apart I do not feel any resistance to this motion.
Is there actually a scientific definition that states that space separates objects?
What is the term given to this action, since I would think that someone has measured this effect. So all I need to do to move an object is to add or subtract space between it and a nearby object. Have you seen this phenomenon of space separating objects?
When you say dimensions, are you talking about spatial dimensions? If so, tell me what established scientific reference states that spatial dimensions are real physical things that are part of the separation of objects. Where did you get this data? Have you ever observed space causing this effect?
All that you said here, are they things that you read about and accepted as truth without question or rigorous scientific testing? Or have you experienced these things and have personal knowledge of these extra forces that effect other objects and events?
QUOTE
Man's understanding of time allows him to survive.
What about all the other living things that do not share man’s understanding of time? How are they surviving? Not all people have the same understanding of time, yet they survive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Man's understanding of time allows him to survive. |
What about all the other living things that do not share man’s understanding of time? How are they surviving? Not all people have the same understanding of time, yet they survive.
But to say he INVENTED the dimension between events seems pretty radical.
I did not say man invented the dimension between events. You are the one talking about dimensions. I would say that what you have said about space and time seem pretty radical since what you claim is not backed up by direct observation or scientific testing
QUOTE
You could have just as easily said SPACE was invented by man.
Space is not a thing that could be invented. It is the term given to that area between objects. Tell me, how does this thing that separates objects get into your computer and put space between these letters? Does it travel over the internet? Where does this space thing get its energy to separate objects?
The glass sitting on a table, if pushed, gains energy. When it hits the floor there is more energy available that allows more possible states of the components, i.e. dispersion. Once broken, the probability of the correct amount of energy being applied in an organized manner to reconstruct it, is essentially zero.
Assuming the duration of change is finite:
We only perceive/detect a change from a release of energy (photon). But there is no messenger entity while the change is happening, how would you know of a duration?
Assuming the duration of change is finite:
We only perceive/detect a change from a release of energy (photon). But there is no messenger entity while the change is happening, how would you know of a duration?
@heretic
Your arguments are pretty weak.
We have event 1, and event2. What separates them in addition to spacial location? Time. It is continual, just as spacial movement is continual. (avoiding quanta for the moment) What makes time a dimension? Dimension is a coined word referring to the way we think about expressing concepts mathematically. It is a word used for our modeling of phenomena. It is a coordinate. We can locate something in three spacial dimensions and time by 4 coordinates. x y z and t.
Because we invent a notation for modeling time does not mean we invent time.
We have event 1, and event2. What separates them in addition to spacial location? Time. It is continual, just as spacial movement is continual. (avoiding quanta for the moment) What makes time a dimension? Dimension is a coined word referring to the way we think about expressing concepts mathematically. It is a word used for our modeling of phenomena. It is a coordinate. We can locate something in three spacial dimensions and time by 4 coordinates. x y z and t.
Because we invent a notation for modeling time does not mean we invent time.
All the things that exist independent of us also have a location, and have a mass
That is a patently ridiculous assertion in so many ways it makes me gag. It is wrong on every possible level. I won't address it directly because it will take us off track.
To say that event1 and event2 will not be separated by time if there were no living things is ludicrous, has no foundation, and is totally arbitrary.
Regarding SPACE:
First you attack me for saying space separates objects,
Then you say it yourself
Then you say it yourself
Space is not a thing that could be invented. It is the term given to that area between objects
You are philosophically random, and shallow. there is no rigorous consistancy in anything you say. It is one thing in one moment and another shortly thereafter.
You refuse to settle on a definition of dimension, and then say you cannot call anything a dimension. It is circular BS. I defined dimension above as a system of independent coordinates (brief and oversimplified, but adequate). If you don't accept that definition, then supply one of your own. But, if you say it can't be defined, or just doesn't exist, then you have said nothing.
So, lets try an experiment. Try to conceive of 3 dimensional space. Conceptual space. Now, try to relate your concept of space to reality. Notice any similarity? Is it wise to ignore that similarity and say it doesn't exist? Or, is it just plain silly?
Your arguments are pretty weak.
QUOTE
Separates how? When you move your finger up and down where is this physical separation taking place? Explain what you mean please
We have event 1, and event2. What separates them in addition to spacial location? Time. It is continual, just as spacial movement is continual. (avoiding quanta for the moment) What makes time a dimension? Dimension is a coined word referring to the way we think about expressing concepts mathematically. It is a word used for our modeling of phenomena. It is a coordinate. We can locate something in three spacial dimensions and time by 4 coordinates. x y z and t.
Because we invent a notation for modeling time does not mean we invent time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Separates how? When you move your finger up and down where is this physical separation taking place? Explain what you mean please |
We have event 1, and event2. What separates them in addition to spacial location? Time. It is continual, just as spacial movement is continual. (avoiding quanta for the moment) What makes time a dimension? Dimension is a coined word referring to the way we think about expressing concepts mathematically. It is a word used for our modeling of phenomena. It is a coordinate. We can locate something in three spacial dimensions and time by 4 coordinates. x y z and t.
Because we invent a notation for modeling time does not mean we invent time.
All the things that exist independent of us also have a location, and have a mass
That is a patently ridiculous assertion in so many ways it makes me gag. It is wrong on every possible level. I won't address it directly because it will take us off track.
To say that event1 and event2 will not be separated by time if there were no living things is ludicrous, has no foundation, and is totally arbitrary.
Regarding SPACE:
First you attack me for saying space separates objects,
QUOTE
Space separates objects how? Physically? Does it push or pull things apart?
Then you say it yourself
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Space separates objects how? Physically? Does it push or pull things apart? |
Then you say it yourself
Space is not a thing that could be invented. It is the term given to that area between objects
You are philosophically random, and shallow. there is no rigorous consistancy in anything you say. It is one thing in one moment and another shortly thereafter.
You refuse to settle on a definition of dimension, and then say you cannot call anything a dimension. It is circular BS. I defined dimension above as a system of independent coordinates (brief and oversimplified, but adequate). If you don't accept that definition, then supply one of your own. But, if you say it can't be defined, or just doesn't exist, then you have said nothing.
So, lets try an experiment. Try to conceive of 3 dimensional space. Conceptual space. Now, try to relate your concept of space to reality. Notice any similarity? Is it wise to ignore that similarity and say it doesn't exist? Or, is it just plain silly?
QUOTE (heretic+Dec 24 2007, 05:55 PM)
BigDumbWeirdo, You say the value of C arose from the properties of the universe in some unknown way. Arose how? In what way? Did man have a hand in this, or did the value of C arise by itself? This value arose from what specific properties of the universe?
To answer your questions in order:
I don't know, it's unknown.
I don't know, it's unknown.
By itself as far as we know.
I don't know, it's unknown, but a good guess would be: Space.
We know that light has a finite speed which is represented as c. Nobody knows why that is the specific speed, to my knowledge.
We know that light has a finite speed which is represented as c. Nobody knows why that is the specific speed, to my knowledge.
Lets get to the basics here. Letters are man-made symbols used to represent ideas, and concepts. The letter C is used by man in many different ways to communicate many different ideas and concepts. The letter C is a symbol that is given a significance or meaning by man. These meanings are applied to this and all the other symbols by man. Man decides what these man-made symbols will mean according to how he wants to use them. The value of C does not tell man what it means, man assigns the meaning to the value of C. In fact the word value is a man-made concept. So the value of C is completely man-made. Numbers are also man-made symbols invented by man as a tool to communicate the concept of quantity. Numbers and equations do not create things in the real world. Numbers were not naturally occurring before man.
You explained that the value of C is not man made by using numbers to prove your point. Numbers are man-made. If you want to prove that the value of C is not man-made, then you would have to give some example of this value actually existing in nature like all the other things in this universe that were here before man, or can exist without man.
That is tantamount to claiming that 2+2=4 is not a mathematical model of a person with two apples who receives two more from another person.
And it's c not C. Lowercase and italic.
This section is philosophical meandering, and has nothing to do with physics in the following way: Mass and volume are man-made concepts, therefore -according to your argument- nothing can have mass or volume, unless it was man-made.
That doesn't make sense. Your claim is that nothing exists, and that is utterly useless from a scientific point of view.
It's not dependent upon belief, it was a matter of semantics. If you're religious, then the fundamental nature of the universe is an aspect of God in your views, if you're not, then the fundamental nature of the universe is just that; the fundamental nature of the universe. It's semantics, and that was how I meant it.
It's not dependent upon belief, it was a matter of semantics. If you're religious, then the fundamental nature of the universe is an aspect of God in your views, if you're not, then the fundamental nature of the universe is just that; the fundamental nature of the universe. It's semantics, and that was how I meant it.
Are you saying that God could have made this value? Which God?
If God exists, then yes.
Whichever God happens to exist.
If you believe in God, then God has always been the source.
If you believe in God, then yes.
If you believe in God, then God has always been the source.
If you believe in God, then yes.
Did you honestly mean to say that it is possible that this value could have come from two completely different sources, depending on what one believes or thinks? What kind of logical scientific thought process is that?
No, and that's not even close to what I suggested, if not taken out of context. I'm assuming you forgot everything else in my post when you read that bit, and were completely unaware of the purely scientific nature of my post, despite the small semantic joke I made by alluding to a differing opinion between theists and atheists.
Again, you're wrong. Nothing which affects everything could possibly be man-made, and time affects everything. You have a much greater opinion of human capabilities than I (or anyone more scientifically minded than you.)
To answer your questions in order:
I don't know, it's unknown.
I don't know, it's unknown.
By itself as far as we know.
I don't know, it's unknown, but a good guess would be: Space.
QUOTE
Unknown way? You know that it arose, but you do not know how? Nobody knows how?
We know that light has a finite speed which is represented as c. Nobody knows why that is the specific speed, to my knowledge.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unknown way? You know that it arose, but you do not know how? Nobody knows how? |
We know that light has a finite speed which is represented as c. Nobody knows why that is the specific speed, to my knowledge.
Lets get to the basics here. Letters are man-made symbols used to represent ideas, and concepts. The letter C is used by man in many different ways to communicate many different ideas and concepts. The letter C is a symbol that is given a significance or meaning by man. These meanings are applied to this and all the other symbols by man. Man decides what these man-made symbols will mean according to how he wants to use them. The value of C does not tell man what it means, man assigns the meaning to the value of C. In fact the word value is a man-made concept. So the value of C is completely man-made. Numbers are also man-made symbols invented by man as a tool to communicate the concept of quantity. Numbers and equations do not create things in the real world. Numbers were not naturally occurring before man.
You explained that the value of C is not man made by using numbers to prove your point. Numbers are man-made. If you want to prove that the value of C is not man-made, then you would have to give some example of this value actually existing in nature like all the other things in this universe that were here before man, or can exist without man.
That is tantamount to claiming that 2+2=4 is not a mathematical model of a person with two apples who receives two more from another person.
And it's c not C. Lowercase and italic.
This section is philosophical meandering, and has nothing to do with physics in the following way: Mass and volume are man-made concepts, therefore -according to your argument- nothing can have mass or volume, unless it was man-made.
That doesn't make sense. Your claim is that nothing exists, and that is utterly useless from a scientific point of view.
QUOTE
So which is it? If the value is a real thing then how is it that its source is dependent on the belief or what one thinks. Belief or thought is responsible for the origin of the value of C? If this value is a real thing then science can describe it.
It's not dependent upon belief, it was a matter of semantics. If you're religious, then the fundamental nature of the universe is an aspect of God in your views, if you're not, then the fundamental nature of the universe is just that; the fundamental nature of the universe. It's semantics, and that was how I meant it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So which is it? If the value is a real thing then how is it that its source is dependent on the belief or what one thinks. Belief or thought is responsible for the origin of the value of C? If this value is a real thing then science can describe it. |
It's not dependent upon belief, it was a matter of semantics. If you're religious, then the fundamental nature of the universe is an aspect of God in your views, if you're not, then the fundamental nature of the universe is just that; the fundamental nature of the universe. It's semantics, and that was how I meant it.
Are you saying that God could have made this value? Which God?
If God exists, then yes.
Whichever God happens to exist.
QUOTE
When did God become the source of a mathematical value? Is he responsible for all the values?
If you believe in God, then God has always been the source.
If you believe in God, then yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When did God become the source of a mathematical value? Is he responsible for all the values? |
If you believe in God, then God has always been the source.
If you believe in God, then yes.
Did you honestly mean to say that it is possible that this value could have come from two completely different sources, depending on what one believes or thinks? What kind of logical scientific thought process is that?
No, and that's not even close to what I suggested, if not taken out of context. I'm assuming you forgot everything else in my post when you read that bit, and were completely unaware of the purely scientific nature of my post, despite the small semantic joke I made by alluding to a differing opinion between theists and atheists.
QUOTE
Again, time is a man-made concept. It involves numbers and a man-made system of using these numbers. Time is not a thing that moves or motivates these man-made time pieces. All time pieces are machines set up by man to run and give the required result that he wants.
Again, you're wrong. Nothing which affects everything could possibly be man-made, and time affects everything. You have a much greater opinion of human capabilities than I (or anyone more scientifically minded than you.)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 26 2007, 05:20 PM)
To answer your questions in order:
I don't know, it's unknown.
I don't know, it's unknown.
By itself as far as we know.
I don't know, it's unknown, but a good guess would be: Space.
We know that light has a finite speed which is represented as c. Nobody knows why that is the specific speed, to my knowledge.
That is tantamount to claiming that 2+2=4 is not a mathematical model of a person with two apples who receives two more from another person.
And it's c not C. Lowercase and italic.
This section is philosophical meandering, and has nothing to do with physics in the following way: Mass and volume are man-made concepts, therefore -according to your argument- nothing can have mass or volume, unless it was man-made.
That doesn't make sense. Your claim is that nothing exists, and that is utterly useless from a scientific point of view.
It's not dependent upon belief, it was a matter of semantics. If you're religious, then the fundamental nature of the universe is an aspect of God in your views, if you're not, then the fundamental nature of the universe is just that; the fundamental nature of the universe. It's semantics, and that was how I meant it.
If God exists, then yes.
Whichever God happens to exist.
If you believe in God, then God has always been the source.
If you believe in God, then yes.
No, and that's not even close to what I suggested, if not taken out of context. I'm assuming you forgot everything else in my post when you read that bit, and were completely unaware of the purely scientific nature of my post, despite the small semantic joke I made by alluding to a differing opinion between theists and atheists.
Again, you're wrong. Nothing which affects everything could possibly be man-made, and time affects everything. You have a much greater opinion of human capabilities than I (or anyone more scientifically minded than you.)
Precisely the reason why it is. Human existence is based on 'time'.
I don't know, it's unknown.
I don't know, it's unknown.
By itself as far as we know.
I don't know, it's unknown, but a good guess would be: Space.
We know that light has a finite speed which is represented as c. Nobody knows why that is the specific speed, to my knowledge.
That is tantamount to claiming that 2+2=4 is not a mathematical model of a person with two apples who receives two more from another person.
And it's c not C. Lowercase and italic.
This section is philosophical meandering, and has nothing to do with physics in the following way: Mass and volume are man-made concepts, therefore -according to your argument- nothing can have mass or volume, unless it was man-made.
That doesn't make sense. Your claim is that nothing exists, and that is utterly useless from a scientific point of view.
It's not dependent upon belief, it was a matter of semantics. If you're religious, then the fundamental nature of the universe is an aspect of God in your views, if you're not, then the fundamental nature of the universe is just that; the fundamental nature of the universe. It's semantics, and that was how I meant it.
If God exists, then yes.
Whichever God happens to exist.
If you believe in God, then God has always been the source.
If you believe in God, then yes.
No, and that's not even close to what I suggested, if not taken out of context. I'm assuming you forgot everything else in my post when you read that bit, and were completely unaware of the purely scientific nature of my post, despite the small semantic joke I made by alluding to a differing opinion between theists and atheists.
Again, you're wrong. Nothing which affects everything could possibly be man-made, and time affects everything. You have a much greater opinion of human capabilities than I (or anyone more scientifically minded than you.)
QUOTE
Nothing which affects everything could possibly be man-made, and time affects everything
Precisely the reason why it is. Human existence is based on 'time'.
To travel at c a ship would have an infinite mass and require infinite energy?
+
Mass bends space and time? (and light)
but
a photon is massless BUT travels at c
so gravity and time are?
an effect of Mass?
And elfie said that Mass = EM
So EM bends it self?
+
Mass bends space and time? (and light)
but
a photon is massless BUT travels at c
so gravity and time are?
an effect of Mass?
And elfie said that Mass = EM
So EM bends it self?
QUOTE (phyti+Dec 26 2007, 10:38 PM)
Precisely the reason why it is. Human existence is based on 'time'.
That doesn't even make any sense to me.
Just because we notice something, need something, or have some particular quality doesn't make that man-made. We need air, but man didn't make that magical mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water vapor.
Our thoughts and experiences are ordered by time, but that doesn't provide evidence that time is imaginary. Effect still never precedes cause, no matter how delusional a person may become.
That doesn't even make any sense to me.
Just because we notice something, need something, or have some particular quality doesn't make that man-made. We need air, but man didn't make that magical mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water vapor.
Our thoughts and experiences are ordered by time, but that doesn't provide evidence that time is imaginary. Effect still never precedes cause, no matter how delusional a person may become.
It seems to this newbie that Phyti is caught up with the 'spatialization of metric time'.
Clock time!
Time as used to measure the space of human activity.
Think of all that Mass! All that E!
Work time, Private time, Nap time? Whats that you say? Don't waste your time?
I'm out of time? But wait theres more!
Phyti attempts to tie human made temporal controls to the representation of time and motion purely in terms of geometry.
Newtonian physics; the motion of a body or the change of some quantity in time.
Forgive me my probablistic brothers, but I'm ignoring you!
Hey didn't Newtonian physics allow us to construct clocks accurate enough to capture the motion of terrestrial, and celestial bodies?
newcleAR clocks anyone?
Which were then used to prove a certain famous crazy hair guy's theory(s)?
So what is time? Which time? How long must I go on?
'Planck Time'?
'Rosemary and Tyme'
'Time flies' or it flys? Alas, I've no time for grammar!
'Time bandits'
'Time cop'
'Time'
'Time ends?'
'Oh no! I'm out of Time, its 'Bed time'!
Clock time!
Time as used to measure the space of human activity.
Think of all that Mass! All that E!
Work time, Private time, Nap time? Whats that you say? Don't waste your time?
I'm out of time? But wait theres more!
Phyti attempts to tie human made temporal controls to the representation of time and motion purely in terms of geometry.
Newtonian physics; the motion of a body or the change of some quantity in time.
Forgive me my probablistic brothers, but I'm ignoring you!
Hey didn't Newtonian physics allow us to construct clocks accurate enough to capture the motion of terrestrial, and celestial bodies?
newcleAR clocks anyone?
Which were then used to prove a certain famous crazy hair guy's theory(s)?
So what is time? Which time? How long must I go on?
'Planck Time'?
'Rosemary and Tyme'
'Time flies' or it flys? Alas, I've no time for grammar!
'Time bandits'
'Time cop'
'Time'
'Time ends?'
'Oh no! I'm out of Time, its 'Bed time'!
1. Time is the dimension or dimensions that separate events. We measure time, sure, but it exists independent of us.
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
3. At the planck time/size level, all is fuzzy, so lets skip that for now.
The assertion that because we model it with mathematics, or assign a value, we invent it, is absurd.
The assertion that we cannot prove there is time is absurd.
The assertion that we cannot prove that we live in three spacial dimension is absurd.
It's as absurd as the assumtion that we can prove nothing, and nothing is real. You can philosophically take that position, but it is of no value. It is just an arbitrary belief with no predictive or analytical value. pure Dogma!! Useless. Pure silliness being said for effect.
Trying to effect an effect by affecting effects affects nothing. (just felt like saying that).
2. Space is the dimension or dimensions that separate objects. It turns out that time and space are related by the speed of light, which is a constant. DISTANCE = C X TIME. This gives insight to the effects of relativity and shows how time and space are interdependent. You might even say time=distance since you can convert between them with a constant. Chew on that one.
3. At the planck time/size level, all is fuzzy, so lets skip that for now.
The assertion that because we model it with mathematics, or assign a value, we invent it, is absurd.
The assertion that we cannot prove there is time is absurd.
The assertion that we cannot prove that we live in three spacial dimension is absurd.
It's as absurd as the assumtion that we can prove nothing, and nothing is real. You can philosophically take that position, but it is of no value. It is just an arbitrary belief with no predictive or analytical value. pure Dogma!! Useless. Pure silliness being said for effect.
Trying to effect an effect by affecting effects affects nothing. (just felt like saying that).
Hi BigDumbWeirdo, sparkiii, phyti, meBigGuy, heretic and probably a lot of others..
I have not been following this thread but I have some ideas on time if you have time... he he he! I apologize if these ideas simply muddy the waters...
I have not been following this thread but I have some ideas on time if you have time... he he he! I apologize if these ideas simply muddy the waters...
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
QUOTE
Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return.
Time exists independent of consciousness. Time is the dimension that separates events just as space separates objects. If there were no living entities in the universe, the energy we measure as the spectral lines of hydrogen and helium would have the same relationship.meBigGuy is right, we have time keeping clocks that need no human intervention to ensure that they are able to count time as we know it. Time has no need of consciousness... it is consciousness that has need of time... the dependency is reversed. I very much agree with the idea that time separates objects in space and time also provides a history. These entities are linked strongly with time. Our physical space is closed under time to connect things due to Special Relativity since Special Relativity is the appropriate physics to deal with all light related phenomena. If everything was light our universe would be without time and without an expression of space. I have said on a number of occasions that it is time itself that is preventing everything from happening all at once.
Lets look at events that relate to the force carriers in our Universe (photons)... the photons (both real and propagating and also virtual). In the case of the emission and absorption process of a single photon what we have in the frame of the photon is something that is instantaneous... photon is emitted and it is absorbed in a single event in it's own time frame... the reason for this is light (in it's own frame of reference, executes/propagates at the signal velocity of all interconnecting processes... nothing is faster (so far... other than tunneling processes). The photon undergoes the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction (in it's own frame)... this we understand is the null geodesic and it connects source to sink without any extension in it's own frame. I am not alone in this interpretation since I heard Roger Penrose use this exact description in a radio interview recently... I am in good company here. In such a frame the "clicks" of the "clock" of any photon is completely stopped and in it's own frame the instant it is created is the instant it is destroyed (or absorbed or whatever... maybe more "whatever"). This is a good description of a single event IMHO ... the one in which source and sink are "coincident" because in that zero quantum photon time it's influence can travel across the Universe at "infinite speed" as reckoned in the "moving frame" of the photon... this carries the force of all action from place to place as a synchronous resonant event. Externally in the observer world where consciousness has time to exist, where time is progressing, we "believe" that we can measure light "moving" at the propagation velocity through space.... In a way this is the exact opposite of this event which has no time and no displacement that is measurable... this is because time is required to measure everything. We need a theory to account for this "resonance" and presently there is no truly consistent theory bar one...
The Cramer Interpretation of Wheeler Feynman Theory sort of accounts for this phenomenon by connecting the source with the sink in a time symmetric event where we have retarded wave phenomena propagating away from the source at the speed of light while the reverse is also happening... that is the advanced wave is coming from the sink traveling backwards in time from the event's future forming a space time resonance where we can only measure the part of that resonance which is retarded (this is because we are causal creatures). It is easy to dismiss this phenomenon but this view of reality is just as secure in science as other interpretations to this current day. This "resonance" is incorporated in Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. There is no inconsistency and it is every bit as correct as any other theory. The problem seems to be that we do not believe it at this point in time. Not that there are any compelling reason to believe that retarded waves are the only waves that exist... I personally believe that the retarded waves are physically present in the evanescent field of both the source and the sink. In the event that a single event is executing this event is a transaction with the future and so it "knows" it's destination and the advanced wave has already been sent the moment the retarded wave has been initiated. This resonance is spatial wave phenomena and it results in the emission and absorption of packets of energy we know as photons. Because of interferences with the standing matter waves in space these packets will always find the shortest path to the sink but are critically dependent on the physical placement of all the objects of matter in the Universe... These are solutions of the wave equation inside of a cavity where this cavity might be a tiny sub-atomic cavity or even the "vault of the Universe itself".
If these exchanges of photons represent true instantaneous events... both parts the emission and the absorption of the one photon are counted here... then our Universe is "motivated" by these energetic processes and is the drumbeat of all temporal phenomena. For instance the ticking of a watch must be attended by many individual photon exchange force events and if the rate of these were slowed or accelerated the watch itself is slowed and accelerated by this process. It is just as well that most things around us have the same timekeepers so that everything in our observer frame of reference moves along mitigated by these individual exchanges of "action" interspersed by "inaction". The same must apply to "virtual photons"... these are "photons" that remain attached to sources such as those that cause magnetism or electrostatic fields or indeed any process in a relatively static frame of reference.
I agree that mass is only associated with temporal particles and the massless photon is not bothered by temporal events being quanta and therefore immune from any process that involves exchanges of energy "in transit" since all energy processes require time the quantum is outside of time and that is the reason why they must be absorbed whole and not in part.
Lets look at events that relate to the force carriers in our Universe (photons)... the photons (both real and propagating and also virtual). In the case of the emission and absorption process of a single photon what we have in the frame of the photon is something that is instantaneous... photon is emitted and it is absorbed in a single event in it's own time frame... the reason for this is light (in it's own frame of reference, executes/propagates at the signal velocity of all interconnecting processes... nothing is faster (so far... other than tunneling processes). The photon undergoes the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction (in it's own frame)... this we understand is the null geodesic and it connects source to sink without any extension in it's own frame. I am not alone in this interpretation since I heard Roger Penrose use this exact description in a radio interview recently... I am in good company here. In such a frame the "clicks" of the "clock" of any photon is completely stopped and in it's own frame the instant it is created is the instant it is destroyed (or absorbed or whatever... maybe more "whatever"). This is a good description of a single event IMHO ... the one in which source and sink are "coincident" because in that zero quantum photon time it's influence can travel across the Universe at "infinite speed" as reckoned in the "moving frame" of the photon... this carries the force of all action from place to place as a synchronous resonant event. Externally in the observer world where consciousness has time to exist, where time is progressing, we "believe" that we can measure light "moving" at the propagation velocity through space.... In a way this is the exact opposite of this event which has no time and no displacement that is measurable... this is because time is required to measure everything. We need a theory to account for this "resonance" and presently there is no truly consistent theory bar one...
The Cramer Interpretation of Wheeler Feynman Theory sort of accounts for this phenomenon by connecting the source with the sink in a time symmetric event where we have retarded wave phenomena propagating away from the source at the speed of light while the reverse is also happening... that is the advanced wave is coming from the sink traveling backwards in time from the event's future forming a space time resonance where we can only measure the part of that resonance which is retarded (this is because we are causal creatures). It is easy to dismiss this phenomenon but this view of reality is just as secure in science as other interpretations to this current day. This "resonance" is incorporated in Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. There is no inconsistency and it is every bit as correct as any other theory. The problem seems to be that we do not believe it at this point in time. Not that there are any compelling reason to believe that retarded waves are the only waves that exist... I personally believe that the retarded waves are physically present in the evanescent field of both the source and the sink. In the event that a single event is executing this event is a transaction with the future and so it "knows" it's destination and the advanced wave has already been sent the moment the retarded wave has been initiated. This resonance is spatial wave phenomena and it results in the emission and absorption of packets of energy we know as photons. Because of interferences with the standing matter waves in space these packets will always find the shortest path to the sink but are critically dependent on the physical placement of all the objects of matter in the Universe... These are solutions of the wave equation inside of a cavity where this cavity might be a tiny sub-atomic cavity or even the "vault of the Universe itself".
If these exchanges of photons represent true instantaneous events... both parts the emission and the absorption of the one photon are counted here... then our Universe is "motivated" by these energetic processes and is the drumbeat of all temporal phenomena. For instance the ticking of a watch must be attended by many individual photon exchange force events and if the rate of these were slowed or accelerated the watch itself is slowed and accelerated by this process. It is just as well that most things around us have the same timekeepers so that everything in our observer frame of reference moves along mitigated by these individual exchanges of "action" interspersed by "inaction". The same must apply to "virtual photons"... these are "photons" that remain attached to sources such as those that cause magnetism or electrostatic fields or indeed any process in a relatively static frame of reference.
I agree that mass is only associated with temporal particles and the massless photon is not bothered by temporal events being quanta and therefore immune from any process that involves exchanges of energy "in transit" since all energy processes require time the quantum is outside of time and that is the reason why they must be absorbed whole and not in part.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or, we can say that time doesn't exist, but we do. "The past" is simply the state of our memory when we use it. Our individual memories and our collective memories (and physical documentation) represent the past, but it's gone, never to return. |
Time exists independent of consciousness. Time is the dimension that separates events just as space separates objects. If there were no living entities in the universe, the energy we measure as the spectral lines of hydrogen and helium would have the same relationship.
meBigGuy is right, we have time keeping clocks that need no human intervention to ensure that they are able to count time as we know it. Time has no need of consciousness... it is consciousness that has need of time... the dependency is reversed. I very much agree with the idea that time separates objects in space and time also provides a history. These entities are linked strongly with time. Our physical space is closed under time to connect things due to Special Relativity since Special Relativity is the appropriate physics to deal with all light related phenomena. If everything was light our universe would be without time and without an expression of space. I have said on a number of occasions that it is time itself that is preventing everything from happening all at once.
Lets look at events that relate to the force carriers in our Universe (photons)... the photons (both real and propagating and also virtual). In the case of the emission and absorption process of a single photon what we have in the frame of the photon is something that is instantaneous... photon is emitted and it is absorbed in a single event in it's own time frame... the reason for this is light (in it's own frame of reference, executes/propagates at the signal velocity of all interconnecting processes... nothing is faster (so far... other than tunneling processes). The photon undergoes the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction (in it's own frame)... this we understand is the null geodesic and it connects source to sink without any extension in it's own frame. I am not alone in this interpretation since I heard Roger Penrose use this exact description in a radio interview recently... I am in good company here. In such a frame the "clicks" of the "clock" of any photon is completely stopped and in it's own frame the instant it is created is the instant it is destroyed (or absorbed or whatever... maybe more "whatever"). This is a good description of a single event IMHO ... the one in which source and sink are "coincident" because in that zero quantum photon time it's influence can travel across the Universe at "infinite speed" as reckoned in the "moving frame" of the photon... this carries the force of all action from place to place as a synchronous resonant event. Externally in the observer world where consciousness has time to exist, where time is progressing, we "believe" that we can measure light "moving" at the propagation velocity through space.... In a way this is the exact opposite of this event which has no time and no displacement that is measurable... this is because time is required to measure everything. We need a theory to account for this "resonance" and presently there is no truly consistent theory bar one...
The Cramer Interpretation of Wheeler Feynman Theory sort of accounts for this phenomenon by connecting the source with the sink in a time symmetric event where we have retarded wave phenomena propagating away from the source at the speed of light while the reverse is also happening... that is the advanced wave is coming from the sink traveling backwards in time from the event's future forming a space time resonance where we can only measure the part of that resonance which is retarded (this is because we are causal creatures). It is easy to dismiss this phenomenon but this view of reality is just as secure in science as other interpretations to this current day. This "resonance" is incorporated in Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. There is no inconsistency and it is every bit as correct as any other theory. The problem seems to be that we do not believe it at this point in time. Not that there are any compelling reason to believe that retarded waves are the only waves that exist... I personally believe that the retarded waves are physically present in the evanescent field of both the source and the sink. In the event that a single event is executing this event is a transaction with the future and so it "knows" it's destination and the advanced wave has already been sent the moment the retarded wave has been initiated. This resonance is spatial wave phenomena and it results in the emission and absorption of packets of energy we know as photons. Because of interferences with the standing matter waves in space these packets will always find the shortest path to the sink but are critically dependent on the physical placement of all the objects of matter in the Universe... These are solutions of the wave equation inside of a cavity where this cavity might be a tiny sub-atomic cavity or even the "vault of the Universe itself".
If these exchanges of photons represent true instantaneous events... both parts the emission and the absorption of the one photon are counted here... then our Universe is "motivated" by these energetic processes and is the drumbeat of all temporal phenomena. For instance the ticking of a watch must be attended by many individual photon exchange force events and if the rate of these were slowed or accelerated the watch itself is slowed and accelerated by this process. It is just as well that most things around us have the same timekeepers so that everything in our observer frame of reference moves along mitigated by these individual exchanges of "action" interspersed by "inaction". The same must apply to "virtual photons"... these are "photons" that remain attached to sources such as those that cause magnetism or electrostatic fields or indeed any process in a relatively static frame of reference.
I agree that mass is only associated with temporal particles and the massless photon is not bothered by temporal events being quanta and therefore immune from any process that involves exchanges of energy "in transit" since all energy processes require time the quantum is outside of time and that is the reason why they must be absorbed whole and not in part.
Lets look at events that relate to the force carriers in our Universe (photons)... the photons (both real and propagating and also virtual). In the case of the emission and absorption process of a single photon what we have in the frame of the photon is something that is instantaneous... photon is emitted and it is absorbed in a single event in it's own time frame... the reason for this is light (in it's own frame of reference, executes/propagates at the signal velocity of all interconnecting processes... nothing is faster (so far... other than tunneling processes). The photon undergoes the most extreme case of time dilation and length contraction (in it's own frame)... this we understand is the null geodesic and it connects source to sink without any extension in it's own frame. I am not alone in this interpretation since I heard Roger Penrose use this exact description in a radio interview recently... I am in good company here. In such a frame the "clicks" of the "clock" of any photon is completely stopped and in it's own frame the instant it is created is the instant it is destroyed (or absorbed or whatever... maybe more "whatever"). This is a good description of a single event IMHO ... the one in which source and sink are "coincident" because in that zero quantum photon time it's influence can travel across the Universe at "infinite speed" as reckoned in the "moving frame" of the photon... this carries the force of all action from place to place as a synchronous resonant event. Externally in the observer world where consciousness has time to exist, where time is progressing, we "believe" that we can measure light "moving" at the propagation velocity through space.... In a way this is the exact opposite of this event which has no time and no displacement that is measurable... this is because time is required to measure everything. We need a theory to account for this "resonance" and presently there is no truly consistent theory bar one...
The Cramer Interpretation of Wheeler Feynman Theory sort of accounts for this phenomenon by connecting the source with the sink in a time symmetric event where we have retarded wave phenomena propagating away from the source at the speed of light while the reverse is also happening... that is the advanced wave is coming from the sink traveling backwards in time from the event's future forming a space time resonance where we can only measure the part of that resonance which is retarded (this is because we are causal creatures). It is easy to dismiss this phenomenon but this view of reality is just as secure in science as other interpretations to this current day. This "resonance" is incorporated in Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. There is no inconsistency and it is every bit as correct as any other theory. The problem seems to be that we do not believe it at this point in time. Not that there are any compelling reason to believe that retarded waves are the only waves that exist... I personally believe that the retarded waves are physically present in the evanescent field of both the source and the sink. In the event that a single event is executing this event is a transaction with the future and so it "knows" it's destination and the advanced wave has already been sent the moment the retarded wave has been initiated. This resonance is spatial wave phenomena and it results in the emission and absorption of packets of energy we know as photons. Because of interferences with the standing matter waves in space these packets will always find the shortest path to the sink but are critically dependent on the physical placement of all the objects of matter in the Universe... These are solutions of the wave equation inside of a cavity where this cavity might be a tiny sub-atomic cavity or even the "vault of the Universe itself".
If these exchanges of photons represent true instantaneous events... both parts the emission and the absorption of the one photon are counted here... then our Universe is "motivated" by these energetic processes and is the drumbeat of all temporal phenomena. For instance the ticking of a watch must be attended by many individual photon exchange force events and if the rate of these were slowed or accelerated the watch itself is slowed and accelerated by this process. It is just as well that most things around us have the same timekeepers so that everything in our observer frame of reference moves along mitigated by these individual exchanges of "action" interspersed by "inaction". The same must apply to "virtual photons"... these are "photons" that remain attached to sources such as those that cause magnetism or electrostatic fields or indeed any process in a relatively static frame of reference.
I agree that mass is only associated with temporal particles and the massless photon is not bothered by temporal events being quanta and therefore immune from any process that involves exchanges of energy "in transit" since all energy processes require time the quantum is outside of time and that is the reason why they must be absorbed whole and not in part.
QUOTE (heretic @ Dec 21 2007+ 12:43 AM)
Planck time is a man made unit of time. Max plank did not discover plank time.
Why don't you click on the link and actually learn what Planck Time is?
It's fundamental. It's the amount of time it takes a particle traveling at c to move one Planck Length, which is itself derived from the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. It's a fundamental unit because it's based on fundamental units which are, in turn, based on the behavior of the universe itself. I guarantee you this much: If we ever make contact with an extraterrestrial intelligent species whose level of development is at least the same as ours, then they will have the Planck Time, (though calling it by a different name) and it will be the exact same measure of time as our own.
It's fundamental. It's the amount of time it takes a particle traveling at c to move one Planck Length, which is itself derived from the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. It's a fundamental unit because it's based on fundamental units which are, in turn, based on the behavior of the universe itself. I guarantee you this much: If we ever make contact with an extraterrestrial intelligent species whose level of development is at least the same as ours, then they will have the Planck Time, (though calling it by a different name) and it will be the exact same measure of time as our own.
I am familiar with Planck Time but IMHO it is no more fundamental than any other combination of things so heretic has my vote on that one. Planck's Constant is indeed very special and every civilization in the Universe will have an equivalent (provided the laws of physics are everywhere the same). The combination of entities that derive a Planck Length is relatively very artificial I think, as to the "process" of light traveling a certain short distance it is not the right question... Light does not move it resonates between two position so it may not pass over/ between two points that distance apart. I can illustrate this idea with Richard Feynman's example of why light does not actually "move" as such (... well not like the way a fermion moves).
Setting earthly standards of length and time has been the recreation of mankind for quite some time and I am not unaware of the political implications of such activities. It will never be possible to measure the Planck Length without an expenditure of energy a 100 magnitudes greater than that harnessed by our entire civilization so it is something that never be proven nor disproven... it is in my ming a "philosophy" like a belief in G*d. The fundamental unit of length does not exist because of Einstein... it must remain relative. willing to debate that... I can tell you what is zero length and what is zero time and how this relates to distances in our Universe through the forcing of time into the realm of measurement by relativistic means.... Effectively slowing light down so that it becomes a stationary particle such as an electron or other fermion.
Cheers
Setting earthly standards of length and time has been the recreation of mankind for quite some time and I am not unaware of the political implications of such activities. It will never be possible to measure the Planck Length without an expenditure of energy a 100 magnitudes greater than that harnessed by our entire civilization so it is something that never be proven nor disproven... it is in my ming a "philosophy" like a belief in G*d. The fundamental unit of length does not exist because of Einstein... it must remain relative. willing to debate that... I can tell you what is zero length and what is zero time and how this relates to distances in our Universe through the forcing of time into the realm of measurement by relativistic means.... Effectively slowing light down so that it becomes a stationary particle such as an electron or other fermion.
Cheers
So you are saying that light like gravity is transmitted instantaneously.
But because photons have wave properties the returning wave resonates against the arriving wave and slows the incoming speed of the wave portion of the photon to nominal propagation.
So a photon 'appears' to have no mass because the mass already arrived?
Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space?
But because photons have wave properties the returning wave resonates against the arriving wave and slows the incoming speed of the wave portion of the photon to nominal propagation.
So a photon 'appears' to have no mass because the mass already arrived?
Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space?
The way I think of it (and I am not a physicist)
A photon travels at the speed of light
So, A photon "experiences" no time and travels no distance. Rather, those concepts are not defined for the energy we perseive as a photon.
An instantaneous energy transfer occurs from Source to Receptor. We experience that as a photon traveling 5 light years from a star to our eye. Cramer, and Wheeler-Feynman try to explain.
To simplify, when you look at the star you send a message back in time so the photon can start its journey 5 years ago and arrive at your eye today. The energy transfer, from the point of view of the energy, was instant and involved no travel. Wheeler-Feynman says no photon can be emitted without an established receptor because otherwise we cannot resolve the transfer from the energy's perspective.
gravity accelerates things independent of mass. 0 grams, 10 grams, 100grams. That is basic. In a uniform gravitational field, the beam of light falls at the same rate as a dropped weight. Space geometry affects all.
A photon travels at the speed of light
So, A photon "experiences" no time and travels no distance. Rather, those concepts are not defined for the energy we perseive as a photon.
An instantaneous energy transfer occurs from Source to Receptor. We experience that as a photon traveling 5 light years from a star to our eye. Cramer, and Wheeler-Feynman try to explain.
To simplify, when you look at the star you send a message back in time so the photon can start its journey 5 years ago and arrive at your eye today. The energy transfer, from the point of view of the energy, was instant and involved no travel. Wheeler-Feynman says no photon can be emitted without an established receptor because otherwise we cannot resolve the transfer from the energy's perspective.
QUOTE
Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space?
gravity accelerates things independent of mass. 0 grams, 10 grams, 100grams. That is basic. In a uniform gravitational field, the beam of light falls at the same rate as a dropped weight. Space geometry affects all.
"An instantaneous energy transfer occurs from Source to Receptor."
Interesting, I will look that up right now.
Question: Would that not also apply to the wave/particle screen experiments? Adds and interesting twist to the concept of an observer.
"Gravity accelerates things independent of mass. 0 grams, 10 grams, 100grams. That is basic. In a uniform gravitational field, the beam of light falls at the same rate as a dropped weight. Space geometry affects all."
Understood, very basic, saw the video of the moon experiment the other day.
I guess my actual question was, could that indicate that gravity isn't a force or particle, but an effect caused by the presence of mass in space? Hence no Graviton? But I did recently read in another Elfie post that there is data about Gravity having a nominal proagation? Could that not be aside effect of having 'c' as a speed limit.
Thanks for the positive response(s).
*sorry tags not working
Interesting, I will look that up right now.
Question: Would that not also apply to the wave/particle screen experiments? Adds and interesting twist to the concept of an observer.
"Gravity accelerates things independent of mass. 0 grams, 10 grams, 100grams. That is basic. In a uniform gravitational field, the beam of light falls at the same rate as a dropped weight. Space geometry affects all."
Understood, very basic, saw the video of the moon experiment the other day.
I guess my actual question was, could that indicate that gravity isn't a force or particle, but an effect caused by the presence of mass in space? Hence no Graviton? But I did recently read in another Elfie post that there is data about Gravity having a nominal proagation? Could that not be aside effect of having 'c' as a speed limit.
Thanks for the positive response(s).
*sorry tags not working
Hi sparkiii, meBigGuy et al,
I have only just seen the additional things placed there by meBigGuy but they are "on target"... I will add some further points to clarify (since it is difficult and there is still a lot of confusion on this subject on the web... I use Feynman himself for this information... nothing less will do since almost all other sources are "dead wrong")...
This is just an extension to light speed of the normal Relativity Concept that applies to material particles at high relativistic speed. The statement that the speed of light is the "maximum speed" is not true when concerning internal frames of reference (there are two separate ways to calculate speed seen from within the frame of the moving "target" and seen from within the frame of the "stationary" observer). The faster a particle or space traveler moves ... close to the speed of light... it's/his clock loses ticks by undergoing time dilation (actually time "stretching"). As far as the traveler is concerned this "loss of time" which is not of any mechanical origin and is not perceptible from an internal traveler frame, cannot be observed from within that frame itself of the particle/space ship and translates into reckoning a higher speed (relative to an external observer frame). Remember you should always compare measurements made in the same frame of reference if any meaningful results are to be noted. To compare the measurement of time in an external moving frame with distance traveled in the moving frame or to compare distance in an external moving frame to the time in the laboratory frame. What relativity does is allows comparisons of length and comparisons of time between two separate frames of reference and the differences are simply a way to convert from one system to the other. Quite clearly we are often viewing events in moving frames of reference and what we want to know is the measurements in the moving system translate to in the frame of the moving system... allowing for propagation time and for stellar aberration.
Since closing on the speed of light results in almost a complete loss of "ticks" of any internal time keeping method (relative to an external "at rest" observer), the speed relative to external "matter wave phenomena" such as the position of the Earth or other bodies that could be considered as being relatively at rest relative to each other, can be made as large as we like in the frame of the accelerated system so long as that penalty of acceleration is accepted by the moving frame of reference. A dramatic example of this would be provided that we could accelerate a spaceship to marginally under the speed of light "almost instantly", a traveler would traverse the entire Milky Way length and back again in a matter of seconds "ships time". However earth time over 200,000 years will have passed as an absolute minimum for this journey (the time it takes wave phenomena to traverse the same distance). On the one hand any traveler would age only seconds of time while his immediate siblings would have died and been dead on Earth for almost 200 millenia. In that time it would be debatable if humankind would still exist on the Earth at that later time. During such a journey the clocks inside the ship would be subject to an internally unobserved "dilation".... one ship's clock second being stretched to the equivalent of possibly billions of Earth clock seconds. The velocity shown by an "optical velocimeter" (equivalent of a speedometer in a car) using ships time for reckoning would not be limited by the "speed" of light but would be unbounded at the top end of that scale which would be calibrated from "zero" to "infinity". In the same way for light's internal clock it would actually be entirely stopped (relative to external observers) so that any passage of time in the frame of the photons just would not happen (however the phase and spreading are properties of the space which contain "matter"). All journeys for light take no perceptible time at all and if no time passes then no "dynamics" can proceed. This means that energy exchanges cannot occur since they all require time and space . Velocity would be at the extremum of this internal scale above so it's (particle or spaceship) velocity is "infinite" if it could travel at the speed of light. Note also I have used the words "speed of light" to indicate not 3X10e8 m/s but the "local" speed of light which depends on the "propagation velocity" in the refractive medium.
The trick is external observers of light are in a particularly difficult position since light is a quantum process. To observe the light (photon by photon) is to destroy its wave property (qubit) and to convert it to a particle property. There are many "imaginative" applets and diagrams showing light "moving in waves" through space and reflecting off surfaces etc. In actual fact, contrary to common wisdom, this just does not happen. Light is a spreading corpuscular phenomenon of energy transfer and does not actually "move in waves" any more than the photons are bouncing around like "billiard balls" inside of cavities. It is just an easy "no questions asked" way of explaining the phenomenon to undergraduates.
Richard Feynman knew that it was a difficult concept to explain to ordinary people and he actually thought that it may be impossible for his ideas to be effectively communicated to people with little background in Physics... nonetheless he decided that he should try and explain it to undergraduates in a way that could be understood. He illustrated this point in this way...
I have only just seen the additional things placed there by meBigGuy but they are "on target"... I will add some further points to clarify (since it is difficult and there is still a lot of confusion on this subject on the web... I use Feynman himself for this information... nothing less will do since almost all other sources are "dead wrong")...
QUOTE
So you are saying that light like gravity is transmitted instantaneously.
But because photons have wave properties the returning wave resonates against the arriving wave and slows the incoming speed of the wave portion of the photon to nominal propagation.
So a photon 'appears' to have no mass because the mass already arrived?
Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space?
Sorry about that I have given the wrong impression there... We have different frames of reference, light is a very special frame of reference. The idea that I am trying to convey is "in the frame of light itself" ... a frame carried along with whatever it is that is propagated... the way that it calculates speed "internally" would indicate distance divided by time as "infinite"... this is reckoned in the frame of the light as an infinite velocity.But because photons have wave properties the returning wave resonates against the arriving wave and slows the incoming speed of the wave portion of the photon to nominal propagation.
So a photon 'appears' to have no mass because the mass already arrived?
Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space?
This is just an extension to light speed of the normal Relativity Concept that applies to material particles at high relativistic speed. The statement that the speed of light is the "maximum speed" is not true when concerning internal frames of reference (there are two separate ways to calculate speed seen from within the frame of the moving "target" and seen from within the frame of the "stationary" observer). The faster a particle or space traveler moves ... close to the speed of light... it's/his clock loses ticks by undergoing time dilation (actually time "stretching"). As far as the traveler is concerned this "loss of time" which is not of any mechanical origin and is not perceptible from an internal traveler frame, cannot be observed from within that frame itself of the particle/space ship and translates into reckoning a higher speed (relative to an external observer frame). Remember you should always compare measurements made in the same frame of reference if any meaningful results are to be noted. To compare the measurement of time in an external moving frame with distance traveled in the moving frame or to compare distance in an external moving frame to the time in the laboratory frame. What relativity does is allows comparisons of length and comparisons of time between two separate frames of reference and the differences are simply a way to convert from one system to the other. Quite clearly we are often viewing events in moving frames of reference and what we want to know is the measurements in the moving system translate to in the frame of the moving system... allowing for propagation time and for stellar aberration.
Since closing on the speed of light results in almost a complete loss of "ticks" of any internal time keeping method (relative to an external "at rest" observer), the speed relative to external "matter wave phenomena" such as the position of the Earth or other bodies that could be considered as being relatively at rest relative to each other, can be made as large as we like in the frame of the accelerated system so long as that penalty of acceleration is accepted by the moving frame of reference. A dramatic example of this would be provided that we could accelerate a spaceship to marginally under the speed of light "almost instantly", a traveler would traverse the entire Milky Way length and back again in a matter of seconds "ships time". However earth time over 200,000 years will have passed as an absolute minimum for this journey (the time it takes wave phenomena to traverse the same distance). On the one hand any traveler would age only seconds of time while his immediate siblings would have died and been dead on Earth for almost 200 millenia. In that time it would be debatable if humankind would still exist on the Earth at that later time. During such a journey the clocks inside the ship would be subject to an internally unobserved "dilation".... one ship's clock second being stretched to the equivalent of possibly billions of Earth clock seconds. The velocity shown by an "optical velocimeter" (equivalent of a speedometer in a car) using ships time for reckoning would not be limited by the "speed" of light but would be unbounded at the top end of that scale which would be calibrated from "zero" to "infinity". In the same way for light's internal clock it would actually be entirely stopped (relative to external observers) so that any passage of time in the frame of the photons just would not happen (however the phase and spreading are properties of the space which contain "matter"). All journeys for light take no perceptible time at all and if no time passes then no "dynamics" can proceed. This means that energy exchanges cannot occur since they all require time and space . Velocity would be at the extremum of this internal scale above so it's (particle or spaceship) velocity is "infinite" if it could travel at the speed of light. Note also I have used the words "speed of light" to indicate not 3X10e8 m/s but the "local" speed of light which depends on the "propagation velocity" in the refractive medium.
The trick is external observers of light are in a particularly difficult position since light is a quantum process. To observe the light (photon by photon) is to destroy its wave property (qubit) and to convert it to a particle property. There are many "imaginative" applets and diagrams showing light "moving in waves" through space and reflecting off surfaces etc. In actual fact, contrary to common wisdom, this just does not happen. Light is a spreading corpuscular phenomenon of energy transfer and does not actually "move in waves" any more than the photons are bouncing around like "billiard balls" inside of cavities. It is just an easy "no questions asked" way of explaining the phenomenon to undergraduates.
Richard Feynman knew that it was a difficult concept to explain to ordinary people and he actually thought that it may be impossible for his ideas to be effectively communicated to people with little background in Physics... nonetheless he decided that he should try and explain it to undergraduates in a way that could be understood. He illustrated this point in this way...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So you are saying that light like gravity is transmitted instantaneously. But because photons have wave properties the returning wave resonates against the arriving wave and slows the incoming speed of the wave portion of the photon to nominal propagation. So a photon 'appears' to have no mass because the mass already arrived? Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space? |
Sorry about that I have given the wrong impression there... We have different frames of reference, light is a very special frame of reference. The idea that I am trying to convey is "in the frame of light itself" ... a frame carried along with whatever it is that is propagated... the way that it calculates speed "internally" would indicate distance divided by time as "infinite"... this is reckoned in the frame of the light as an infinite velocity.
This is just an extension to light speed of the normal Relativity Concept that applies to material particles at high relativistic speed. The statement that the speed of light is the "maximum speed" is not true when concerning internal frames of reference (there are two separate ways to calculate speed seen from within the frame of the moving "target" and seen from within the frame of the "stationary" observer). The faster a particle or space traveler moves ... close to the speed of light... it's/his clock loses ticks by undergoing time dilation (actually time "stretching"). As far as the traveler is concerned this "loss of time" which is not of any mechanical origin and is not perceptible from an internal traveler frame, cannot be observed from within that frame itself of the particle/space ship and translates into reckoning a higher speed (relative to an external observer frame). Remember you should always compare measurements made in the same frame of reference if any meaningful results are to be noted. To compare the measurement of time in an external moving frame with distance traveled in the moving frame or to compare distance in an external moving frame to the time in the laboratory frame. What relativity does is allows comparisons of length and comparisons of time between two separate frames of reference and the differences are simply a way to convert from one system to the other. Quite clearly we are often viewing events in moving frames of reference and what we want to know is the measurements in the moving system translate to in the frame of the moving system... allowing for propagation time and for stellar aberration.
Since closing on the speed of light results in almost a complete loss of "ticks" of any internal time keeping method (relative to an external "at rest" observer), the speed relative to external "matter wave phenomena" such as the position of the Earth or other bodies that could be considered as being relatively at rest relative to each other, can be made as large as we like in the frame of the accelerated system so long as that penalty of acceleration is accepted by the moving frame of reference. A dramatic example of this would be provided that we could accelerate a spaceship to marginally under the speed of light "almost instantly", a traveler would traverse the entire Milky Way length and back again in a matter of seconds "ships time". However earth time over 200,000 years will have passed as an absolute minimum for this journey (the time it takes wave phenomena to traverse the same distance). On the one hand any traveler would age only seconds of time while his immediate siblings would have died and been dead on Earth for almost 200 millenia. In that time it would be debatable if humankind would still exist on the Earth at that later time. During such a journey the clocks inside the ship would be subject to an internally unobserved "dilation".... one ship's clock second being stretched to the equivalent of possibly billions of Earth clock seconds. The velocity shown by an "optical velocimeter" (equivalent of a speedometer in a car) using ships time for reckoning would not be limited by the "speed" of light but would be unbounded at the top end of that scale which would be calibrated from "zero" to "infinity". In the same way for light's internal clock it would actually be entirely stopped (relative to external observers) so that any passage of time in the frame of the photons just would not happen (however the phase and spreading are properties of the space which contain "matter"). All journeys for light take no perceptible time at all and if no time passes then no "dynamics" can proceed. This means that energy exchanges cannot occur since they all require time and space . Velocity would be at the extremum of this internal scale above so it's (particle or spaceship) velocity is "infinite" if it could travel at the speed of light. Note also I have used the words "speed of light" to indicate not 3X10e8 m/s but the "local" speed of light which depends on the "propagation velocity" in the refractive medium.
The trick is external observers of light are in a particularly difficult position since light is a quantum process. To observe the light (photon by photon) is to destroy its wave property (qubit) and to convert it to a particle property. There are many "imaginative" applets and diagrams showing light "moving in waves" through space and reflecting off surfaces etc. In actual fact, contrary to common wisdom, this just does not happen. Light is a spreading corpuscular phenomenon of energy transfer and does not actually "move in waves" any more than the photons are bouncing around like "billiard balls" inside of cavities. It is just an easy "no questions asked" way of explaining the phenomenon to undergraduates.
Richard Feynman knew that it was a difficult concept to explain to ordinary people and he actually thought that it may be impossible for his ideas to be effectively communicated to people with little background in Physics... nonetheless he decided that he should try and explain it to undergraduates in a way that could be understood. He illustrated this point in this way...
...We were talking about light. The first important feature about light is that it appears to be particles: when very weak monochromatic light (light of one color) hits a detector, the detector makes equally loud clicks less and less often as the light gets dimmer.
The other important feature about light discussed in the hrs: lecture is partial reflection of monochromatic light. An average of 4% of the photons hitting a single surface of glass is reflected. This is already a deep mystery, since it is impossible to predict which photons will bounce back and which will go through. With a second surface, the results are strange: instead of the expected reflection of 8% by the two surfaces, the partial reflection can be amplified as high as 16% or turned off, depending on the thickness of the glass. This strange phenomenon of partial reflection by two surfaces can be explained for intense light by a theory of waves, but the wave theory cannot explain how the detector makes equally loud clicks as the light gets dimmer. Quantum electrodynamics “resolves” this wave-particle duality by saying that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), but the price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the position of being able to calculate only the probability that a photon will hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens.
In the first lecture I described how physicists calculate the probability that a particular event will happen. They draw some arrows on a piece of paper according to some rules, which go as follows:
-GRAND PRINCIPLE: The probability of an event is equal to the square of the length of an arrow called the “probability amplitude.” An arrow of length 0.4, for example, represents a probability of 0.16, or 16%.
-GENERAL RULE for drawing arrows if an event can happen in alternative ways: Draw an arrow for each way, and then combine the arrows (“add” them) by hooking the head of one to the tail of the next. A “final arrow” is then drawn from the tail of the first arrow to the head of the last one. The final arrow is the one whose square gives the probability of the entire event.
There were also some special rules for drawing arrows in the case of partial refection by glass (they can be found on pages 26 and 27).
All of the preceding is a review of the first lecture. What I would like to do now is show you how this model of the world, which is so utterly different from anything you've ever seen before (that perhaps you hope never to see it again), can explain all the simple properties of light that you know: when light rejects off a mirror, the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection; light bends when it goes from air into water; light goes in straight lines; light can be focused by a lens, and so on. The theory also describes many other properties of light that you are probably not familiar with.
This is just an extension to light speed of the normal Relativity Concept that applies to material particles at high relativistic speed. The statement that the speed of light is the "maximum speed" is not true when concerning internal frames of reference (there are two separate ways to calculate speed seen from within the frame of the moving "target" and seen from within the frame of the "stationary" observer). The faster a particle or space traveler moves ... close to the speed of light... it's/his clock loses ticks by undergoing time dilation (actually time "stretching"). As far as the traveler is concerned this "loss of time" which is not of any mechanical origin and is not perceptible from an internal traveler frame, cannot be observed from within that frame itself of the particle/space ship and translates into reckoning a higher speed (relative to an external observer frame). Remember you should always compare measurements made in the same frame of reference if any meaningful results are to be noted. To compare the measurement of time in an external moving frame with distance traveled in the moving frame or to compare distance in an external moving frame to the time in the laboratory frame. What relativity does is allows comparisons of length and comparisons of time between two separate frames of reference and the differences are simply a way to convert from one system to the other. Quite clearly we are often viewing events in moving frames of reference and what we want to know is the measurements in the moving system translate to in the frame of the moving system... allowing for propagation time and for stellar aberration.
Since closing on the speed of light results in almost a complete loss of "ticks" of any internal time keeping method (relative to an external "at rest" observer), the speed relative to external "matter wave phenomena" such as the position of the Earth or other bodies that could be considered as being relatively at rest relative to each other, can be made as large as we like in the frame of the accelerated system so long as that penalty of acceleration is accepted by the moving frame of reference. A dramatic example of this would be provided that we could accelerate a spaceship to marginally under the speed of light "almost instantly", a traveler would traverse the entire Milky Way length and back again in a matter of seconds "ships time". However earth time over 200,000 years will have passed as an absolute minimum for this journey (the time it takes wave phenomena to traverse the same distance). On the one hand any traveler would age only seconds of time while his immediate siblings would have died and been dead on Earth for almost 200 millenia. In that time it would be debatable if humankind would still exist on the Earth at that later time. During such a journey the clocks inside the ship would be subject to an internally unobserved "dilation".... one ship's clock second being stretched to the equivalent of possibly billions of Earth clock seconds. The velocity shown by an "optical velocimeter" (equivalent of a speedometer in a car) using ships time for reckoning would not be limited by the "speed" of light but would be unbounded at the top end of that scale which would be calibrated from "zero" to "infinity". In the same way for light's internal clock it would actually be entirely stopped (relative to external observers) so that any passage of time in the frame of the photons just would not happen (however the phase and spreading are properties of the space which contain "matter"). All journeys for light take no perceptible time at all and if no time passes then no "dynamics" can proceed. This means that energy exchanges cannot occur since they all require time and space . Velocity would be at the extremum of this internal scale above so it's (particle or spaceship) velocity is "infinite" if it could travel at the speed of light. Note also I have used the words "speed of light" to indicate not 3X10e8 m/s but the "local" speed of light which depends on the "propagation velocity" in the refractive medium.
The trick is external observers of light are in a particularly difficult position since light is a quantum process. To observe the light (photon by photon) is to destroy its wave property (qubit) and to convert it to a particle property. There are many "imaginative" applets and diagrams showing light "moving in waves" through space and reflecting off surfaces etc. In actual fact, contrary to common wisdom, this just does not happen. Light is a spreading corpuscular phenomenon of energy transfer and does not actually "move in waves" any more than the photons are bouncing around like "billiard balls" inside of cavities. It is just an easy "no questions asked" way of explaining the phenomenon to undergraduates.
Richard Feynman knew that it was a difficult concept to explain to ordinary people and he actually thought that it may be impossible for his ideas to be effectively communicated to people with little background in Physics... nonetheless he decided that he should try and explain it to undergraduates in a way that could be understood. He illustrated this point in this way...
...We were talking about light. The first important feature about light is that it appears to be particles: when very weak monochromatic light (light of one color) hits a detector, the detector makes equally loud clicks less and less often as the light gets dimmer.
The other important feature about light discussed in the hrs: lecture is partial reflection of monochromatic light. An average of 4% of the photons hitting a single surface of glass is reflected. This is already a deep mystery, since it is impossible to predict which photons will bounce back and which will go through. With a second surface, the results are strange: instead of the expected reflection of 8% by the two surfaces, the partial reflection can be amplified as high as 16% or turned off, depending on the thickness of the glass. This strange phenomenon of partial reflection by two surfaces can be explained for intense light by a theory of waves, but the wave theory cannot explain how the detector makes equally loud clicks as the light gets dimmer. Quantum electrodynamics “resolves” this wave-particle duality by saying that light is made of particles (as Newton originally thought), but the price of this great advancement of science is a retreat by physics to the position of being able to calculate only the probability that a photon will hit a detector, without offering a good model of how it actually happens.
In the first lecture I described how physicists calculate the probability that a particular event will happen. They draw some arrows on a piece of paper according to some rules, which go as follows:
-GRAND PRINCIPLE: The probability of an event is equal to the square of the length of an arrow called the “probability amplitude.” An arrow of length 0.4, for example, represents a probability of 0.16, or 16%.
-GENERAL RULE for drawing arrows if an event can happen in alternative ways: Draw an arrow for each way, and then combine the arrows (“add” them) by hooking the head of one to the tail of the next. A “final arrow” is then drawn from the tail of the first arrow to the head of the last one. The final arrow is the one whose square gives the probability of the entire event.
There were also some special rules for drawing arrows in the case of partial refection by glass (they can be found on pages 26 and 27).
All of the preceding is a review of the first lecture. What I would like to do now is show you how this model of the world, which is so utterly different from anything you've ever seen before (that perhaps you hope never to see it again), can explain all the simple properties of light that you know: when light rejects off a mirror, the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection; light bends when it goes from air into water; light goes in straight lines; light can be focused by a lens, and so on. The theory also describes many other properties of light that you are probably not familiar with.
In fact Feynman goes on to explain that every reasonable feature of our Universe except some aspects of resonance inside of nuclei (radioactivity) and gravity can be explained by this one theory. It is so accurate that it is difficult to explain just how accurate... If an atom was 100 Kms on a side then we understand the way that atom works with this theory to an accuracy of 1 cm. The only limitation to this theory is that it is a theory of statistics and only describes bulk properties not properties that are accompanying individual events. The reason for this are photons are either reflected or absorbed as a whole (photons do not involve themselves in dynamics ... this is because dynamics involve time ans space ... two properties that light speed photons do not possess) and there is never any partial absorption or reflection. Something cant happen to the photon along the way without an absorption and reemission which upsets the internal qubit.
Another "obvious" reason is the detectors cannot register partial clicks... it is either a whole click or there is no click at all. Those who understand photomultipliers and the way they work know that this is an instrumentation problem and not a physics problem. Take for instance the way in which coherent photons are absorbed into photosensitive emulsions... they absorb entirely and that represents the equivalent of a "click" but a close examination of the emulsion shows that they do not get absorbed with equal probability throughout the emulsion but this rate of absorption is following a wavelike function in which the photons being absorbed reaches a "high" along certain planes and in the intervening planes there is a "low" in the rate of absorption. These are "stationary fringes". This means that when the plate is developed it shows stationary waves of phase of maxima and minima or absorption. If these "stationary waves" are illuminated with the same frequency laser light then a recreation of the entire space of matter can be produced. In the case of photomultipliers this information is entirely lost because only a "plane" of data is recovered and the in-depth recording of the spatial arrangement of matter is entirely lost by conversion to a series of clicks.
I will now elaborate on Richard Feynman's explanation for the "movement" of a photon from the source to the sink. Consider this illustration.
.. Click to enlarge...
.. Click to enlarge...
Observe a "source" at A and a sink at X. In this case a photomultiplier but in general an other atomic resonant state similar to the one at the source. The photons in the LHS diagram have two possible ways to travel to X. A -> B -> X and A -> C -> X. One could be the front surface of glass and the other could be the back surface of glass. The "contributions" at X are a phasor whose amplitude is some value and whose phase is another value as if some kind of rotating hand on a clock determines the direction of each of these phases. The rate of rotation "spatially" depends on the speed of light so it 's rate is slower inside the glass and there is a 180 degree phase change off the rear surface. These two contributions in direction and amplitude are added and provided that the distance between the two surfaces is chosen in an exact way can be made to exactly cancel the reflections at the sink X by way of vector addition.
According to the theory of the path of least action the energy "appears" to travel according to external observers not directly from A -> X because there is an obstruction purposely placed there but will go from A -> B -> X by the shortest path. The other path A -> C -> X partakes in this sum used to calculate probability but this is not the path that the light takes at all... In truth the photons never go there since they never have time to. The "energy" passes only from A -> B -> X in a time related to the speed of light in that medium. Now if as I have stated the distance is chosen just right the probability of detection at X can be made to be be actually zero. No photons will ever be reflected to X so the photons "never arrive".
On the other hand a third plane can be placed as shown in green providing a path A -> D -> X in the presence of the other two paths A -> B -> X and A -> C -> X where these two former paths originally totally cancel. Now we can arrange this third path to provide the same level of reflection detected at X as it would be for a maximum of reflection from the front surface at B. This third plane could be up to thousands of kilometers away and have been practically demonstrated up to around 50 meters, yet the photon once again goes by the path of least action A -> B -> X the shortest available path. The other paths contribute but the photons "never go actually go there". This is referred to as "seeking all paths"... well they "seek nothing... the photons energy travels resonantly from A -> X by only one path.
So this has nothing to do with photons "moving" and "bouncing" off surfaces at all. Feynman said in his original lecture that this was due to matter waves resulting from the positioning of the reflecting planes in space... the interferences then condition the space. These "arrivals of photons guided by the matter wave interferences"are what are recorded in holographic plates not "light waves". It just so happens the pattern is very different for different positions of sources and for different distant planes of matter. A small imprecision in position will disturb this spatial matter wave pattern such that it will be totally lost. This is no theory it is a fact and is thoroughly confirmed by experiment. The "waves" in space are not light waves moving but are stationary matter waves "caused" by the arrangement of particles in space and are quasi-stationary. They are the empty space equivalent of Bragg Planes in X-Ray Diffraction continued into the longer optical frequencies.
So the photons of light "moving in its own frame" (and measured in its own frame) instantly transported by the shortest path in space to the sink at an "infinite speed" as reckoned in its own frame (see above). Seen from the lab observer frame of reference the photons appear to be "moving through space in waves". Well in actual fact Feynman said that it was a spatial resonance... I believe him... These "waves" are due to the presence of distant matter. The photon is "bi-located" at the moment of emission in the frame of the photon (due to infinite time dilation and infinite length contraction bringing source and sink into perfect resonant coincidence in the frame of the photon). The reconciliation of this in lab frames is that we "see waves in space" and this is outside of that primary "stuff"... the light... we have a Universe of space and time that no photon is aware of. At the instant of the "Big Bang" light would have been the primary "stuff"... without the initial formation of "matter"... there would have been no space and no time until "mass" and hence "matter waves" formed. A singularity as far as we can understand it. Yet time somehow began and this was due to the "precipitation" of mass in some form.... A "quantum demolition" event resulting in that mass. From that point in time this mass phenomena would spread as "multidimensional carpets" (Talbot Carpets) through the expanding space and time that was simultaneously produced in that event. It is clear that almost all matter will form through particle and anti-particle creation events. If we assume the Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is operating then anti-particles are simply particles traveling back in time. At the instant of the Big Bang half of all the matter will travel backwards in time to the point before the Big Bang in a Universe that was "uncreated" relative to our Universe.... That was the only place it could go since all of time had not started till that point so any backward time travel would result in a separation/sorting of the primary matter into the two forms separated by the barrier of causality and time's zero point. This solves the problem where all the anti-matter went soon after the Big Bang... You just need to accept Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory Operates. If you do not accept this theory then you are left with a "big problem"... just where did all that antimatter go? You choose which is acceptable and which is not and which theory fits the experimental data that we have on hand.
The photons still have no mass but the energy of the photon is the reality of the photon as a moving and spreading non-dynamic packet.
Another "obvious" reason is the detectors cannot register partial clicks... it is either a whole click or there is no click at all. Those who understand photomultipliers and the way they work know that this is an instrumentation problem and not a physics problem. Take for instance the way in which coherent photons are absorbed into photosensitive emulsions... they absorb entirely and that represents the equivalent of a "click" but a close examination of the emulsion shows that they do not get absorbed with equal probability throughout the emulsion but this rate of absorption is following a wavelike function in which the photons being absorbed reaches a "high" along certain planes and in the intervening planes there is a "low" in the rate of absorption. These are "stationary fringes". This means that when the plate is developed it shows stationary waves of phase of maxima and minima or absorption. If these "stationary waves" are illuminated with the same frequency laser light then a recreation of the entire space of matter can be produced. In the case of photomultipliers this information is entirely lost because only a "plane" of data is recovered and the in-depth recording of the spatial arrangement of matter is entirely lost by conversion to a series of clicks.
I will now elaborate on Richard Feynman's explanation for the "movement" of a photon from the source to the sink. Consider this illustration.
.. Click to enlarge...
.. Click to enlarge...
Observe a "source" at A and a sink at X. In this case a photomultiplier but in general an other atomic resonant state similar to the one at the source. The photons in the LHS diagram have two possible ways to travel to X. A -> B -> X and A -> C -> X. One could be the front surface of glass and the other could be the back surface of glass. The "contributions" at X are a phasor whose amplitude is some value and whose phase is another value as if some kind of rotating hand on a clock determines the direction of each of these phases. The rate of rotation "spatially" depends on the speed of light so it 's rate is slower inside the glass and there is a 180 degree phase change off the rear surface. These two contributions in direction and amplitude are added and provided that the distance between the two surfaces is chosen in an exact way can be made to exactly cancel the reflections at the sink X by way of vector addition.
According to the theory of the path of least action the energy "appears" to travel according to external observers not directly from A -> X because there is an obstruction purposely placed there but will go from A -> B -> X by the shortest path. The other path A -> C -> X partakes in this sum used to calculate probability but this is not the path that the light takes at all... In truth the photons never go there since they never have time to. The "energy" passes only from A -> B -> X in a time related to the speed of light in that medium. Now if as I have stated the distance is chosen just right the probability of detection at X can be made to be be actually zero. No photons will ever be reflected to X so the photons "never arrive".
On the other hand a third plane can be placed as shown in green providing a path A -> D -> X in the presence of the other two paths A -> B -> X and A -> C -> X where these two former paths originally totally cancel. Now we can arrange this third path to provide the same level of reflection detected at X as it would be for a maximum of reflection from the front surface at B. This third plane could be up to thousands of kilometers away and have been practically demonstrated up to around 50 meters, yet the photon once again goes by the path of least action A -> B -> X the shortest available path. The other paths contribute but the photons "never go actually go there". This is referred to as "seeking all paths"... well they "seek nothing... the photons energy travels resonantly from A -> X by only one path.
So this has nothing to do with photons "moving" and "bouncing" off surfaces at all. Feynman said in his original lecture that this was due to matter waves resulting from the positioning of the reflecting planes in space... the interferences then condition the space. These "arrivals of photons guided by the matter wave interferences"are what are recorded in holographic plates not "light waves". It just so happens the pattern is very different for different positions of sources and for different distant planes of matter. A small imprecision in position will disturb this spatial matter wave pattern such that it will be totally lost. This is no theory it is a fact and is thoroughly confirmed by experiment. The "waves" in space are not light waves moving but are stationary matter waves "caused" by the arrangement of particles in space and are quasi-stationary. They are the empty space equivalent of Bragg Planes in X-Ray Diffraction continued into the longer optical frequencies.
So the photons of light "moving in its own frame" (and measured in its own frame) instantly transported by the shortest path in space to the sink at an "infinite speed" as reckoned in its own frame (see above). Seen from the lab observer frame of reference the photons appear to be "moving through space in waves". Well in actual fact Feynman said that it was a spatial resonance... I believe him... These "waves" are due to the presence of distant matter. The photon is "bi-located" at the moment of emission in the frame of the photon (due to infinite time dilation and infinite length contraction bringing source and sink into perfect resonant coincidence in the frame of the photon). The reconciliation of this in lab frames is that we "see waves in space" and this is outside of that primary "stuff"... the light... we have a Universe of space and time that no photon is aware of. At the instant of the "Big Bang" light would have been the primary "stuff"... without the initial formation of "matter"... there would have been no space and no time until "mass" and hence "matter waves" formed. A singularity as far as we can understand it. Yet time somehow began and this was due to the "precipitation" of mass in some form.... A "quantum demolition" event resulting in that mass. From that point in time this mass phenomena would spread as "multidimensional carpets" (Talbot Carpets) through the expanding space and time that was simultaneously produced in that event. It is clear that almost all matter will form through particle and anti-particle creation events. If we assume the Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is operating then anti-particles are simply particles traveling back in time. At the instant of the Big Bang half of all the matter will travel backwards in time to the point before the Big Bang in a Universe that was "uncreated" relative to our Universe.... That was the only place it could go since all of time had not started till that point so any backward time travel would result in a separation/sorting of the primary matter into the two forms separated by the barrier of causality and time's zero point. This solves the problem where all the anti-matter went soon after the Big Bang... You just need to accept Cramer's Event Driven Universe in which Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory Operates. If you do not accept this theory then you are left with a "big problem"... just where did all that antimatter go? You choose which is acceptable and which is not and which theory fits the experimental data that we have on hand.
The photons still have no mass but the energy of the photon is the reality of the photon as a moving and spreading non-dynamic packet.
QUOTE (sparkiii +)
Otherwise why does a massless particle follow the bends mass creates in space?
This is because it follows the interferences created in space just like in the diagram above. It moves along the shortest path between two points the same that matter does in spacetime ... along a null geodesic. There is far mode "character" in that de Broglie wave Background than initially believed... it is not only the matter wave it is the source of matter...
.. Click to enlarge...
It is the sinc function. Notice that the sync function is a one sided function and has anett contribution at the center region. Photons are impulses of energy and this is their form.... as a "pulse" in the time domain (particles) and as a wave in the frequency domain. These two descriptions actually describe the one and the same thing from different domains ... or in this case "frames of reference". The rest frame of light sees an impulse. The relatively moving laboratory frame sees the wave. Two conjugate aspects of the one phenomenon.
I hope that clears up your points but ask questions if something still remains. I have used Richard Feynman's QED Book and his actual videotaped lectures as a reference for this exposition so I believe that this is what he would have said in hindsight. There is some "refinements" required to treat this subject with the full explanation since matter and space are relatively continuous entities but the answers are still the same regardless if this "simple" treatment is used or a more thorough and more complex process of integration is used for all possible routes a photon may take between A and X.
Cheers
.. Click to enlarge...
It is the sinc function. Notice that the sync function is a one sided function and has anett contribution at the center region. Photons are impulses of energy and this is their form.... as a "pulse" in the time domain (particles) and as a wave in the frequency domain. These two descriptions actually describe the one and the same thing from different domains ... or in this case "frames of reference". The rest frame of light sees an impulse. The relatively moving laboratory frame sees the wave. Two conjugate aspects of the one phenomenon.
I hope that clears up your points but ask questions if something still remains. I have used Richard Feynman's QED Book and his actual videotaped lectures as a reference for this exposition so I believe that this is what he would have said in hindsight. There is some "refinements" required to treat this subject with the full explanation since matter and space are relatively continuous entities but the answers are still the same regardless if this "simple" treatment is used or a more thorough and more complex process of integration is used for all possible routes a photon may take between A and X.
Cheers
Thanks Elfie, you understood my last question. I apologize for not having the language to express it 'better'.
I will study your response, thank you for taking the time.
I will study your response, thank you for taking the time.
Very nice post. Thanks for that. I'd be interested in any other Feynman lectures that are online.
One thing didn't quite get through though. Your frequency/time domain analogy. I understand the pulse/sync relationship but I can't quite tie it to particle/wave except in a very loose way. Is that what was intended?
Of course I have a lot more that I don't get, but I'll read the QED lecture I found first.
Thanks again, very informative.
One thing didn't quite get through though. Your frequency/time domain analogy. I understand the pulse/sync relationship but I can't quite tie it to particle/wave except in a very loose way. Is that what was intended?
Of course I have a lot more that I don't get, but I'll read the QED lecture I found first.
Thanks again, very informative.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.