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 = mc˛, 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 = mc˛, 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".
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 t
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 t