Has it ever been said, or can it be said, that time is movement in space?
If it's common knowledge in physics where can I find reference to it?
If it cant be said thank you for letting me know.
QUOTE (orestis+Mar 27 2008, 10:50 AM)
Has it ever been said, or can it be said, that time is movement in space?
If it's common knowledge in physics where can I find reference to it?
If it cant be said thank you for letting me know.
yes, by about half the cranks on this board.
If it's common knowledge in physics where can I find reference to it?
If it cant be said thank you for letting me know.
yes, by about half the cranks on this board.
I take that to be a 'no.'
But..Big Dumb Weirdo?..can a poster with that name be trusted?
But..Big Dumb Weirdo?..can a poster with that name be trusted?
YES.
QUOTE (orestis+Mar 27 2008, 04:14 PM)
I take that to be a 'no.'
But..Big Dumb Weirdo?..can a poster with that name be trusted?
Yes.
Just don't trust anybody with the names "Farsight", "ubavontuba", "amrit" or "Laidback".
But..Big Dumb Weirdo?..can a poster with that name be trusted?
Yes.
Just don't trust anybody with the names "Farsight", "ubavontuba", "amrit" or "Laidback".
Hmm, seems like I stepped into an ongoing firefight here.
If you three are credentialed I'll take your word for it and watch the battle from the side.
If you three are credentialed I'll take your word for it and watch the battle from the side.
There are some ways in which time is like the other dimensions: It can become curved in the presence of a gravitational field just like the space dimensions. In many respects time is a very different dimension to space. If you're into the maths of relativity, you'll find that the time component of the metric is always negative while the space ones are positive (you can choose it to be the other way round though - the point is that space and time are different).
One technique for solving quantum field theories make use of "Wick rotation." This is when you make the substitution t -> it. People talk about imaginary time. In imaginary time, the time dimension becomes just like the space ones.
Hope this helps.
One technique for solving quantum field theories make use of "Wick rotation." This is when you make the substitution t -> it. People talk about imaginary time. In imaginary time, the time dimension becomes just like the space ones.
Hope this helps.
orestis
Dimensions are places that actions can take place in and all dimensions have the same structure. Actions that take place in dimensions create the dimensional relationships.
The only difference between the time dimension and the spatial dimension is that we are moving in the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light. All spatial action may then be compared to the action in the time dimension. This comparison is stated as velocity. V=ds/dt
Another main difference is that we may transition in a direction of time and space at the same time. This is different than the transition that is possible in just the spatial dimension. It is only possible to move in one spatial direction at a time.
Dimensions are places that actions can take place in and all dimensions have the same structure. Actions that take place in dimensions create the dimensional relationships.
The only difference between the time dimension and the spatial dimension is that we are moving in the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light. All spatial action may then be compared to the action in the time dimension. This comparison is stated as velocity. V=ds/dt
Another main difference is that we may transition in a direction of time and space at the same time. This is different than the transition that is possible in just the spatial dimension. It is only possible to move in one spatial direction at a time.
QUOTE
orestis Posted: Mar 28 2008, 01:50 AM Has it ever been said, or can it be said, that time is movement in space?
i would not go as far as saying that time is movement in space, but rather say that time is an extra descriptive term needed to describe changing position in space. you need a sense of before, now and later when you have a system that involves movement eg where was the tennis ball before it was hit and where was it aftertime is about the distinction between past, present and future and if that distinction reflects a real distinction that exists independently of us or that the distinction actually does not exist independently of us
i think science is leaning towards that the distinction actually does not exist independently of us
Hello orestis, et al.
I think you need to define "movement" and at what "scale" (quarks,electrons or atoms, molecules or etc.) you apply this movement.
I think you need to define "movement" and at what "scale" (quarks,electrons or atoms, molecules or etc.) you apply this movement.
Wow. Thank you all. Every time I've tried to find a description of Space-Time it involved math that I don't have. This helped a lot.
I hope you all enjoyed explaining it. I'd like to come back sometime with other questions.
Again, thank you.
I hope you all enjoyed explaining it. I'd like to come back sometime with other questions.
Again, thank you.
If it exists, it moves.
Also, you have to realise that this forum exists to try and stop people discussing real things. If people do not keep believing in 'fantasies', why, the whole world might stop spinning round! - Thus, you will find an abundance of cranks, and counter-cranks, even counter-counter-cranks, all trying to crank things to death, for fear of the love of life! - Just like in the 'real' world, actually!
The only way you can actually ever know anything is by deducing it for yourself.
Besides which, this is a local forum for local people. We don't need strangers here, asking strange, colourful and bendy questions.
Happy cranking!
g.
Also, you have to realise that this forum exists to try and stop people discussing real things. If people do not keep believing in 'fantasies', why, the whole world might stop spinning round! - Thus, you will find an abundance of cranks, and counter-cranks, even counter-counter-cranks, all trying to crank things to death, for fear of the love of life! - Just like in the 'real' world, actually!
The only way you can actually ever know anything is by deducing it for yourself.
Besides which, this is a local forum for local people. We don't need strangers here, asking strange, colourful and bendy questions.
Happy cranking!
g.
Yes Gorgeous.
Us good'ol'boys wanna thank you for that descriptive introduction to our new PhysOrg.
We've done our best to make everything here adapted to a real life situation.
Heck! We even got ourselves our own local Mob.
Btw: feel free to bring your dog, spot right?
If not, go git'it...
We might have some small problem with answering your Physics related questions though.
Hey! Don't let that stop'ya
It doesn't seem to encumber any one else here.
Cheers...
Yoron
Us good'ol'boys wanna thank you for that descriptive introduction to our new PhysOrg.
We've done our best to make everything here adapted to a real life situation.
Heck! We even got ourselves our own local Mob.
Btw: feel free to bring your dog, spot right?
If not, go git'it...
We might have some small problem with answering your Physics related questions though.
Hey! Don't let that stop'ya
It doesn't seem to encumber any one else here.
Cheers...
Yoron
kjw
I haven't figured out how to quote yet.
If time is dependent on us to exist (as I think you are saying) would the expansion of the universe still be accelerating without us to see it? Is time a position-momentum thing?
I haven't figured out how to quote yet.
If time is dependent on us to exist (as I think you are saying) would the expansion of the universe still be accelerating without us to see it? Is time a position-momentum thing?
I just found a thread here that talks about time. Rather than repeat everything Ill go there.
QUOTE
orestis Posted: Today at 3:12 AM If time is dependent on us to exist (as I think you are saying) would the expansion of the universe still be accelerating without us to see it?
events occur without any consciousness to place them in an order. the order that these events are placed in is relative to the consciousness ie the things relativity teaches us.there is good reason to suspect that the universe would continue to accelerate without us measuring it, since the model of the expanding universe works well at explaining the universe way back the the "big bang" event.
time is the sequencing of events, not the events themselves. it is not a case that events do not exist when we do not observe them.
time is the sequencing of events. aww, that takes some of the mystery out of it.
is that why the arrow can go backward and forward and still work?
is that why the arrow can go backward and forward and still work?
QUOTE
orestis Posted on Today at 8:02 AM is that why the arrow can go backward and forward and still work?
exactly. the question is why we, when we are a collection of small things that are time symmetric, see only the "forward" eg a melting polar ice caps. it is likened to why do we not see equal amounts of antimatter and matter ie where did all the antimatter go.
I read an article in Discover called "The Day Before Genesis." April 2008
One of the theories about it is by Julian Barbour. He says there is no past and present, only Now. The article says he has the math to prove it.
Have you heard of him? What he says sounds metaphysical but then so does entangled pairs.
One of the theories about it is by Julian Barbour. He says there is no past and present, only Now. The article says he has the math to prove it.
Have you heard of him? What he says sounds metaphysical but then so does entangled pairs.
QUOTE
orestis Posted on Today at 8:52 AM One of the theories about it is by Julian Barbour. He says there is no past and present, only Now. The article says he has the math to prove it.
he probably does have the math to prove it, but i can mathematically prove that a solution to pythagoras' theorem can give a right angle triangle with a negative length on one, two or three sides. does this make it physically true ?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| orestis Posted on Today at 8:52 AM One of the theories about it is by Julian Barbour. He says there is no past and present, only Now. The article says he has the math to prove it. |
he probably does have the math to prove it, but i can mathematically prove that a solution to pythagoras' theorem can give a right angle triangle with a negative length on one, two or three sides. does this make it physically true ?
Have you heard of him?
Have you heard of him?
no
QUOTE
What he says sounds metaphysical
then i will read up on his workQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What he says sounds metaphysical |
then i will read up on his work
but then so does entangled pairs.
but then so does entangled pairs.
damn straight ! does me head in it does
Here is a couple of posts from May 2002.
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/arc.../post25624.shtm
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/arc.../post29539.shtm
The second post holds a link where Cosmologist Lee Smolin notes "...Barbour is
one of the few people who is truly both a scientist and a philosopher."
The first link has a rundown of some common questions that the
original poster, Orestis, might be interested in knowing more.
It is limited to special relativity though, a separate philosophy than
what quantum mechanics is proving to be.
MrB.
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/arc.../post25624.shtm
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/arc.../post29539.shtm
The second post holds a link where Cosmologist Lee Smolin notes "...Barbour is
one of the few people who is truly both a scientist and a philosopher."
The first link has a rundown of some common questions that the
original poster, Orestis, might be interested in knowing more.
It is limited to special relativity though, a separate philosophy than
what quantum mechanics is proving to be.
MrB.
QUOTE >>>
Have you heard of him?
no <<<
You might have come close, if you are the same KJW.
From: eBray ® 24/09/2005 11:32:40 PM
Subject: re: Teaching Obsolete Theories post id: 1840481
Yes, physicist have a reductionist, logicomathematical approach of trying to reduce complex many body or interacting field problems to a free/ renormalised quasiparticle models.
Chemists tend to favour collective approximation, statistical methods such as Hartree-Fock, Thomas-Fermi, and (like mechanical engineers) are also more comfortable with and receptive to non-reductive thermodynamic thinking than physicists IMO.
This is hardly surprising, as the subject matter of chemistry allows less scope for simplification and abstraction from complexity than the more narrowly reductionist paradigms of late 19th and 20th century physics. A few physicists like Planck and Boltzmann made major contributions to bridging the micro-macro holist reductionist divide, but not much seems to have made a major impact since then, other than David Bohm and John Bell's work in quantum theory.
I was interested to see a popular book by one of the Nobel Prize winners who worked on the fractional quantum hall effect (I've forgotten his name) arguing that it's time for physicists to adopt supplements and complements to traditional reductionist paradigms.
People like Julian Barbour, Peter Atkins and Ilya Prigogine are doing this to some extent, but is significant that the last two are chemists rather than physicists.
From: KJW ® 24/09/2005 11:43:38 PM
Subject: re: Teaching Obsolete Theories post id: 1840489
<Q>
Chemists tend to favour collective approximation, statistical methods such as Hartree-Fock, Thomas-Fermi, and (like mechanical engineers) are also more comfortable with and receptive to non-reductive thermodynamic thinking than physicists IMO.
</Q>
Organic chemists in particular adopt a more pictorial and model-building view.
Have you heard of him?
no <<<
You might have come close, if you are the same KJW.
From: eBray ® 24/09/2005 11:32:40 PM
Subject: re: Teaching Obsolete Theories post id: 1840481
Yes, physicist have a reductionist, logicomathematical approach of trying to reduce complex many body or interacting field problems to a free/ renormalised quasiparticle models.
Chemists tend to favour collective approximation, statistical methods such as Hartree-Fock, Thomas-Fermi, and (like mechanical engineers) are also more comfortable with and receptive to non-reductive thermodynamic thinking than physicists IMO.
This is hardly surprising, as the subject matter of chemistry allows less scope for simplification and abstraction from complexity than the more narrowly reductionist paradigms of late 19th and 20th century physics. A few physicists like Planck and Boltzmann made major contributions to bridging the micro-macro holist reductionist divide, but not much seems to have made a major impact since then, other than David Bohm and John Bell's work in quantum theory.
I was interested to see a popular book by one of the Nobel Prize winners who worked on the fractional quantum hall effect (I've forgotten his name) arguing that it's time for physicists to adopt supplements and complements to traditional reductionist paradigms.
People like Julian Barbour, Peter Atkins and Ilya Prigogine are doing this to some extent, but is significant that the last two are chemists rather than physicists.
From: KJW ® 24/09/2005 11:43:38 PM
Subject: re: Teaching Obsolete Theories post id: 1840489
<Q>
Chemists tend to favour collective approximation, statistical methods such as Hartree-Fock, Thomas-Fermi, and (like mechanical engineers) are also more comfortable with and receptive to non-reductive thermodynamic thinking than physicists IMO.
</Q>
Organic chemists in particular adopt a more pictorial and model-building view.
QUOTE
MisterBelfry Posted: Today at 4:29 PM You might have come close, if you are the same KJW.
no that is not me.
kjw-
A sequencing of events.
How can that make time speed up or slow down?
???Going faster would be the same as bringing the events closer together???
A sequencing of events.
How can that make time speed up or slow down?
???Going faster would be the same as bringing the events closer together???
Just found a thread called Time Demension. All my questions are pobobly already there. Ill ask questions there.
Thanks.
Thanks.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.