What is it about the mass density of matter that slows time?
Perhaps time is blocked in some way?
That question gets to the heart of what gravity really must be. a flowing aether.
It is energy which causes spacetime to deform. This causes time to slow down. This according to General Relativity. In my own theory, spacetime is a medium, and energy is equivalent to the density of the spacetime medium. Therefore, an area with a lot mass will have an increase in the density of the spacetime medium, and objects travelling near that area will have their path's refracted. The higher density of the spacetime medium will also cause the speed of light to become slower, leading to gravitational time dilation.
The point is how does it slow time? What about mass energy could do that? 
Good question. According to General Relativity, the definition of energy is that which curves spacetime. So the curvature of spacetime is energy itself. According to my theory, the definition of energy is the density of the spacetime medium. How does this slow time down?
According to General Relativity: The deformation of spacetime geometry is such that both the space and time axes are stretched/compressed as well as rotated. Compression = slowing down of time, stretching = speeding up of time.
According to my theory: High density areas of the spacetime medium have correspondingly higher energy/mass. Because of this, disturbances in the spacetime medium (like light, other particles, basically energy) travel at a slower pace, leading to the slowing down of time.
You should note that both in GR and my model, energy is constantly moving at the speed of light which is local to the area it is in. An object at that's not moving, is still actually moving through time.
According to General Relativity: The deformation of spacetime geometry is such that both the space and time axes are stretched/compressed as well as rotated. Compression = slowing down of time, stretching = speeding up of time.
According to my theory: High density areas of the spacetime medium have correspondingly higher energy/mass. Because of this, disturbances in the spacetime medium (like light, other particles, basically energy) travel at a slower pace, leading to the slowing down of time.
You should note that both in GR and my model, energy is constantly moving at the speed of light which is local to the area it is in. An object at that's not moving, is still actually moving through time.
Please cefarix just defining mass energy as curving space-time doesn't answer the question of how mass energy accomplishes this. It is still left to answer.
The question to ask would be: How does the curvature of spacetime appear?, since energy is already defined as the curvature of spacetime, to answer that the curvature is caused by energy is now a cyclical definition. So, this is a good question. I don't think present physics has answers on where the curvature of spacetime (or in my theory, the density changes in spacetime) comes from. On the other hand, it is my view that the curvature we see today has evolved according to the laws of physics since the Big Bang. The process necessary for the creation of this curvature also created the Big Bang, and since then the curvature has just evolved along with the rest of the universe as one of its properties.
QUOTE (Nick+May 22 2006, 03:51 AM)
The point is how does it slow time? What about mass energy could do that?
I've explained this question in my previous post partially using Aether Wave Theory concept. Suppose the gravitation field surrounding the mass is simply area of more dense vacuum (i.e. the Aether, be more specific), it's quite natural to expect, the energy will transfer by lower speed by such environment. It means, the vibrations penetrating to the particle proximity are working like sort of gravitational lens and such effect can be even directly observable as gradient of space time at larger distances.
The only difference is, we are formed by the same environment, as it's serving for energy wave spreading, so we cannot observe the relative changes of light speed directly, because we are using the same "slowed light" both for time interval, both for distance interval measurements (we're so called "inner observer" of such system). It results to well known special relativity effects and we can observe just wavelength of light changes, i.e. the well known redshift of light near massive body. Technically it means, if we're using the same light both for space and time measurements, the speed of light is pretty invariant by its very definition and the international system of physical units (SI) takes account into it in definition of speed quantity,
The gravitational field, i.e. slightly more dense environment surrounding all the massive bodies result in effect of relative slowing time, because in general it slovens the spreading of energy, it means all the physical phenomena, the speed of which depends on speed of energy transfer. As you can see, the Aether concept enables all the miraculous relativity effects quite conventionally and transparently, using just a classical physic (i.e. optic, in particular) concepts.
I've explained this question in my previous post partially using Aether Wave Theory concept. Suppose the gravitation field surrounding the mass is simply area of more dense vacuum (i.e. the Aether, be more specific), it's quite natural to expect, the energy will transfer by lower speed by such environment. It means, the vibrations penetrating to the particle proximity are working like sort of gravitational lens and such effect can be even directly observable as gradient of space time at larger distances.
The only difference is, we are formed by the same environment, as it's serving for energy wave spreading, so we cannot observe the relative changes of light speed directly, because we are using the same "slowed light" both for time interval, both for distance interval measurements (we're so called "inner observer" of such system). It results to well known special relativity effects and we can observe just wavelength of light changes, i.e. the well known redshift of light near massive body. Technically it means, if we're using the same light both for space and time measurements, the speed of light is pretty invariant by its very definition and the international system of physical units (SI) takes account into it in definition of speed quantity,
The gravitational field, i.e. slightly more dense environment surrounding all the massive bodies result in effect of relative slowing time, because in general it slovens the spreading of energy, it means all the physical phenomena, the speed of which depends on speed of energy transfer. As you can see, the Aether concept enables all the miraculous relativity effects quite conventionally and transparently, using just a classical physic (i.e. optic, in particular) concepts.
bigger the mass, bigger density D of space, stronger gravitation, slower speed of material change (also speed of clocks)
QUOTE (amrit+May 25 2006, 03:10 PM)
bigger the mass, bigger density D of space, stronger gravitation, slower speed of material change (also speed of clocks)
How does mass density lead to space density?
How does that lead to time slowing down?
How does mass density lead to space density?
How does that lead to time slowing down?
QUOTE (Nick+May 27 2006, 07:37 PM)
How does mass density lead to space density? How does that lead to time slowing down?
By a quite simple way. The gravitation field is the manifestation of energy/mass density gradient of space. Each particle spreads part of it's internal energy into its neighborhood, thus increasing the energy content and creating a gravitational gradient here.
Suppose the vacuum is mostly formed by inertial energy, each increasing of energy content increases it's density too. As the result, the inner motion of particle makes the neighboring vacuum more dense, too. And the higher is environment density, the slower is the energy spreading in it, the slower are all the physical processes, which depends on the energy spreading too. You can imagine, the time proceeds very slowly inside the matter and each the particle of matter is spreading such slowness to its neighborhood.
By a quite simple way. The gravitation field is the manifestation of energy/mass density gradient of space. Each particle spreads part of it's internal energy into its neighborhood, thus increasing the energy content and creating a gravitational gradient here.
Suppose the vacuum is mostly formed by inertial energy, each increasing of energy content increases it's density too. As the result, the inner motion of particle makes the neighboring vacuum more dense, too. And the higher is environment density, the slower is the energy spreading in it, the slower are all the physical processes, which depends on the energy spreading too. You can imagine, the time proceeds very slowly inside the matter and each the particle of matter is spreading such slowness to its neighborhood.
Mass is a pinpoint property. It is concentrated energy zeph.
QUOTE (Nick+May 27 2006, 07:55 PM)
Mass is a pinpoint property. It is concentrated energy zeph.
Yes, therefore is quite natural, it can spread its energy to its neighborhood. It would be quite strange, if the presence of matter would decrease the energy density in it's proximity, don't you think?
Yes, therefore is quite natural, it can spread its energy to its neighborhood. It would be quite strange, if the presence of matter would decrease the energy density in it's proximity, don't you think?
QUOTE (Zephir+May 27 2006, 04:58 PM)
QUOTE (Nick+May 27 2006, 07:55 PM)
Mass is a pinpoint property. It is concentrated energy zeph.
Yes, therefore is quite natural, it can spread its energy to its neighborhood. It would be quite strange, if the presence of matter would decrease the energy density in it's proximity, don't you think?
It can only spread its concentrated energy by radiating electromagnetic waves. Its gravity is created only by its pinpoint mass energy.
Hi,
This is what has been tested with experiment's and application [GPS in all direction] used, and that is a good rule of thumb I think to base any theory on......! Eh!
There are always other dynamics one must look at in order to see the entire implication's of a question!
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~hrs/icap2002/p...roceedings.html
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/question...vity_higgs.html
ciao_
yquantum
This answer is meaningless.
I respectfully disagree with you on this for this simple reason.
The universe in not static (it has changed and continues to change). Any empirical change requires a change of position, temperature requires a change of position, a change of position requires time. Without time there can be no empirical change of position, hence no change.
My own thoughts of exactly what time is differ slightly from the generally accepted view; however that thought is outside the realm what is currently being discussed.
Maxila
i too respectly disagree with you..
the change of positions is what that matters to the universe..it doesn't have a copy of its previous position,as we have in our memories.
only humans can experience time.it is a unit of measurement,created by us.
The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real .Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.
Yes, therefore is quite natural, it can spread its energy to its neighborhood. It would be quite strange, if the presence of matter would decrease the energy density in it's proximity, don't you think?
It can only spread its concentrated energy by radiating electromagnetic waves. Its gravity is created only by its pinpoint mass energy.
QUOTE (Nick+May 27 2006, 08:04 PM)
It can only spread its concentrated energy by radiating electromagnetic waves. Its gravity is created only by its pinpoint mass energy.
Well, the situation can be right opposite: for example quark or electron appears dimensionless being observed by light scattering, but it can have some real shape and nonzero diameter under observation of gravitational waves. Of course, these waves are pretty subtle, so that the detector being able to observe the spatial nuances would be incredibly sensitive. Another possibility is to use the weak interaction for observation at low distances. BTW Each the energy has its own corresponding mass, so that the particle spreading some energy in form of EMG charge isn't fully "pinpoint" even with respect of it's EMG energy spreading.
Well, the situation can be right opposite: for example quark or electron appears dimensionless being observed by light scattering, but it can have some real shape and nonzero diameter under observation of gravitational waves. Of course, these waves are pretty subtle, so that the detector being able to observe the spatial nuances would be incredibly sensitive. Another possibility is to use the weak interaction for observation at low distances. BTW Each the energy has its own corresponding mass, so that the particle spreading some energy in form of EMG charge isn't fully "pinpoint" even with respect of it's EMG energy spreading.
I say pinpoint not meaning zero dimensional. I believe that there are two types of the infnitely small. One is zero the other nonzero. So there is a nonzero extension to particles. Einstein believed it was matter's extension that gave rose to space.I say it is matter's motion and its extension.
EMG? What does this stand for? electromagnetic gravity? Sound like nonsense to me.
EMG? What does this stand for? electromagnetic gravity? Sound like nonsense to me.
QUOTE (Nick+May 27 2006, 09:04 PM)
EMG? What does this stand for? electromagnetic gravity? Sound like nonsense to me.
I mean electromagnetic interaction by this nonsense.
I mean electromagnetic interaction by this nonsense.
What's the G stand for?
QUOTE (Nick+May 27 2006, 09:55 PM)
What's the G stand for?
Nothing. In my country the emg shortcut sometimes denominates the stand for "electromagnetic", so I'm using it occasionally by rote...
Nothing. In my country the emg shortcut sometimes denominates the stand for "electromagnetic", so I'm using it occasionally by rote...
mass density slows time around it. Zeph I don't think energy is leaking out of matter to create a gravity field. Somehow mass slows down time. The actual mechanism I think would be a kind of resistance to the flow of time. Some call it the aether flow that is being blocked.
Hi,This is what has been tested with experiment's and application [GPS in all direction] used, and that is a good rule of thumb I think to base any theory on......! Eh!
There are always other dynamics one must look at in order to see the entire implication's of a question!http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~hrs/icap2002/p...roceedings.html
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/question...vity_higgs.html
ciao_
yquantum
Hi Yquantum,
Hmm... thanks for that, I had not wandered over these areas of "photonics". The information has led to a very productive area of investigation for me. I suppose you already knew that. I will get back here soon. I am otherwise engaged today. I suppose you understand what some of this may mean for the Higgs?
Here is an interesting site...
http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/matterwav...ap_solitons.htm
and look up information on matter-wave bright solitons.
Nice to hear from you.
Cheers
Hmm... thanks for that, I had not wandered over these areas of "photonics". The information has led to a very productive area of investigation for me. I suppose you already knew that. I will get back here soon. I am otherwise engaged today. I suppose you understand what some of this may mean for the Higgs?
Here is an interesting site...
http://www.kip.uni-heidelberg.de/matterwav...ap_solitons.htm
and look up information on matter-wave bright solitons.
Nice to hear from you.
Cheers
QUOTE (Nick+May 28 2006, 03:44 AM)
Zeph I don't think energy is leaking out of matter to create a gravity field. Somehow mass slows down time.
You're don't required to believe in aether hypothesis of course, but in case of objections it's expected, you'll supply some relevant reasons based on logic, not just subjective impressions.
The movement of light based on analogy of vortex field [W. Gordon, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 72, 421 (1923). ] reinvented by USA scientists.
You're don't required to believe in aether hypothesis of course, but in case of objections it's expected, you'll supply some relevant reasons based on logic, not just subjective impressions.
The movement of light based on analogy of vortex field [W. Gordon, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 72, 421 (1923). ] reinvented by USA scientists.
mass slows down speed of motion, speed of change, not time
motion (materal change ) physical
time is psychological, it enters existence when we measure duration of motion
motion (materal change ) physical
time is psychological, it enters existence when we measure duration of motion
Light's clock is gravitational. In gravity where time slows down so does light. Since mass generates gravity it can also be said to slow down time. What about mass is it that can slow time?
Don't let anyone fool you. The correct answer is: Nobody knows for sure.
The interplay bewteen mass and time is rather tricky, to say the least. Why do you suppose De Broglie (pronounced D'Broy) was so troubled by γmc²=hƒ? Oh sure, he found a way to "explain" its apparent contradiction, but he had to resort to the fictitious c/β device to describe the velocity of the so-called phase wave - the pilot harmonic thingy that all matter hitches a ride on.
c/β doesn't agree with Special Relativity.
The point is, on the left side of γmc²=hƒ, the relativistic interval increases with energy; while on the right side it apparently decreases (since time reciprocates frequency, remember?). This is as much a riddle today as it was eighty years ago - one for which nobody has come up with a rock-solid solution. Unless, of course, you side with De Broglie's.
Problem is, it is quite possible that mass is a function of time - not the other way around. And one that is infinitely differentiable, meaning that γmc²=hƒ is a "state" equation: good for only one inertial frame at a time. In other words, no sooner than you modify one side, the opposite side is reset; but by then the inertial frame you were in has literally become a thing of the past. At that point, you do the math again and γmc²=hƒ looks fine once more.
The tail wagging the dog? Perhaps. But remember this: Phlogiston was once a widely accepted and popular theory... until Lavoisier came along.
Bottom line is my top. But don't you just love all the answers?
The interplay bewteen mass and time is rather tricky, to say the least. Why do you suppose De Broglie (pronounced D'Broy) was so troubled by γmc²=hƒ? Oh sure, he found a way to "explain" its apparent contradiction, but he had to resort to the fictitious c/β device to describe the velocity of the so-called phase wave - the pilot harmonic thingy that all matter hitches a ride on.
c/β doesn't agree with Special Relativity.
The point is, on the left side of γmc²=hƒ, the relativistic interval increases with energy; while on the right side it apparently decreases (since time reciprocates frequency, remember?). This is as much a riddle today as it was eighty years ago - one for which nobody has come up with a rock-solid solution. Unless, of course, you side with De Broglie's.
Problem is, it is quite possible that mass is a function of time - not the other way around. And one that is infinitely differentiable, meaning that γmc²=hƒ is a "state" equation: good for only one inertial frame at a time. In other words, no sooner than you modify one side, the opposite side is reset; but by then the inertial frame you were in has literally become a thing of the past. At that point, you do the math again and γmc²=hƒ looks fine once more.
The tail wagging the dog? Perhaps. But remember this: Phlogiston was once a widely accepted and popular theory... until Lavoisier came along.
Bottom line is my top. But don't you just love all the answers?
Well,.. I'm not book smart or street smart or smart smart, but since everybody is sharing their theories here's mine:
Ever experienced lag in a 3D game or virtual world? Well, try logging on second life (secondlife.com) with your onboard graphic card.
Complex 3D builds require more processing power from your pc, it requires so much from your processor / graphic card that it cant handle all math in time and it looks on your screen like you are slowing down which is known as lag.
While your character or avatar is experiencing lag, zoom in on its watch and compare that to the watch on your own wrist, you'd say that time in the virtual world or 3d game is slowing down.
The other avatars on your screen who arent experiencing lag (cause they are further away from the complex 3d build or have a decent graphic card) seem like they are moving faster and to them it seems like you are moving in slowmotion.
While details (heavy textures, lots of primitives, nurbs or polygons) are heavy on your computer processsor, mass is heavy to "render" for the "processor" that renders our universe/reality causing lag which we experience as time slowing down.
The slowing down that occurs could also be a form of "feedback". On a server you would see 3d avatars teleport from one place to another because they are lagging. This is a form of chaos that cannot excist in our universe/reality. So in order to prevent chaos/paradoxes to happen the "processor" or "processors" that render our world don't skip steps in the rendering but "slows down time" so all steps can be processed. So the "processor" could either be limited in it's capabilities or it could be a build in prevention to overheat "the processor".
I'm not saying we are living in some sort of grid like in the movie Matrix. The "processor" is something more natural than a circuit board. Perhaps what some call god or whatever caused intellegent design (the reason why there is something rather than nothing).
It's out of the box and maybe I should just stick with plumbing but those are my two cents. If there is any reason why my theory cannot not happen I would like to know. Again, physics is not my core business but if you need some plumbing done I'm your guy.
Ever experienced lag in a 3D game or virtual world? Well, try logging on second life (secondlife.com) with your onboard graphic card.
Complex 3D builds require more processing power from your pc, it requires so much from your processor / graphic card that it cant handle all math in time and it looks on your screen like you are slowing down which is known as lag.
While your character or avatar is experiencing lag, zoom in on its watch and compare that to the watch on your own wrist, you'd say that time in the virtual world or 3d game is slowing down.
The other avatars on your screen who arent experiencing lag (cause they are further away from the complex 3d build or have a decent graphic card) seem like they are moving faster and to them it seems like you are moving in slowmotion.
While details (heavy textures, lots of primitives, nurbs or polygons) are heavy on your computer processsor, mass is heavy to "render" for the "processor" that renders our universe/reality causing lag which we experience as time slowing down.
The slowing down that occurs could also be a form of "feedback". On a server you would see 3d avatars teleport from one place to another because they are lagging. This is a form of chaos that cannot excist in our universe/reality. So in order to prevent chaos/paradoxes to happen the "processor" or "processors" that render our world don't skip steps in the rendering but "slows down time" so all steps can be processed. So the "processor" could either be limited in it's capabilities or it could be a build in prevention to overheat "the processor".
I'm not saying we are living in some sort of grid like in the movie Matrix. The "processor" is something more natural than a circuit board. Perhaps what some call god or whatever caused intellegent design (the reason why there is something rather than nothing).
It's out of the box and maybe I should just stick with plumbing but those are my two cents. If there is any reason why my theory cannot not happen I would like to know. Again, physics is not my core business but if you need some plumbing done I'm your guy.
QUOTE (Nick+May 21 2006, 07:28 PM)
What is it about the mass density of matter that slows time?
Perhaps time is blocked in some way?
That question gets to the heart of what gravity really must be. a flowing aether.
Hi Nick:
I don't think GR offers an explanation as to why mass or velocity slow times. Rather it it shows with an astounding degree of accuracy and a staggering amount evidence, how they slow time.
The question of why they slow time has intrigued me for quite some time. Like may people I have a thought about this which I have previously made a thread about so I won't be redundant and post it here.
One thing I will say is I believe there is a kind of aether which is the fabric of space itself and it is intertwined with gravity and mass.
Maxila
Perhaps time is blocked in some way?
That question gets to the heart of what gravity really must be. a flowing aether.
Hi Nick:
I don't think GR offers an explanation as to why mass or velocity slow times. Rather it it shows with an astounding degree of accuracy and a staggering amount evidence, how they slow time.
The question of why they slow time has intrigued me for quite some time. Like may people I have a thought about this which I have previously made a thread about so I won't be redundant and post it here.
One thing I will say is I believe there is a kind of aether which is the fabric of space itself and it is intertwined with gravity and mass.
Maxila
I thought Nick left the building.
Hello my real name is Alonso Jose Avila Cetina 35 y.o ,nice to meet you all.
I do this because i want to understand the meaning of being alive this is a powerfull reason.
I am glad to see more people thinking in the physics way. Here in Yucatan state city of Merida and ,Mexico :country, is hard to find people to talk about this theoretical stuff
in response to the question What is it about the mass density of matter that slows time?
Time= 1/Energy and also the oposite E=1/Time
anyone saying universe is cooling means energy is changing in to mass so we say its expanding well at least it fits in the formulas above.
so going to the past could be something like shrinking mass till it becomes energy and to go to future goes something like energy going into mass.
This also leads me to conclude that when the cycle is over a sublevel is formed and mass goes in to energy. SO this takes me to think wich level or sublevel are we living now.
Let me know how good was the answer this came up 2 or 3 months ago when i just wake up asking my self what i am WHO am I .
I do this because i want to understand the meaning of being alive this is a powerfull reason.
I am glad to see more people thinking in the physics way. Here in Yucatan state city of Merida and ,Mexico :country, is hard to find people to talk about this theoretical stuff
in response to the question What is it about the mass density of matter that slows time?
Time= 1/Energy and also the oposite E=1/Time
anyone saying universe is cooling means energy is changing in to mass so we say its expanding well at least it fits in the formulas above.
so going to the past could be something like shrinking mass till it becomes energy and to go to future goes something like energy going into mass.
This also leads me to conclude that when the cycle is over a sublevel is formed and mass goes in to energy. SO this takes me to think wich level or sublevel are we living now.
Let me know how good was the answer this came up 2 or 3 months ago when i just wake up asking my self what i am WHO am I .
QUOTE
Let me know how good was the answer this came up 2 or 3 months ago when i just wake up asking my self what i am WHO am I .
This answer is meaningless.
ok i thought i would jump on the crankzy bandwagon here a bit.
time and motion and distance are interrelated and dependent on each other in a classical world view.
given that S=1/2(V_i + V_f)t
time is a measure of distance and acceleration.
so if we bend space-time the distance is shorter or longer, and time changes because of the interrelated-ness of the physical laws.
that is my thoughts on why velocity changes time.
as for mass i'm not sure.
time and motion and distance are interrelated and dependent on each other in a classical world view.
given that S=1/2(V_i + V_f)t
time is a measure of distance and acceleration.
so if we bend space-time the distance is shorter or longer, and time changes because of the interrelated-ness of the physical laws.
that is my thoughts on why velocity changes time.
as for mass i'm not sure.
If Nick is still following this post, following is my input:
I have recently published my hypothesis for unification of forces of nature: The Trinity model of universe.
The basic presumption of my model is uniform distribution of pure energy in the 4-dimensional space-time in the pre-perceptible universe. This forms a non-changing uniform system which contains the entire time-dimension in it. Such a system does not perceive empty space or time. In other words, energy during this ‘initial’ stage is omnipresent and omniscient.
Then there is a development (akin to Big Bang of standard model) (I suggest development of a fifth dimension capable of concentrating energy in itself), which leads to formation of localized concentrations of energy. Along with it 4-D space-time also gets concentrated and deformed due to non-negotiable relationship between energy and space-time. Thus the manifest Universe is born. Such localizations in the 5-D system are nothing but primordial matter particles containing concentrated energy. These are inherently capable of deforming space-time. The deformation of 3-D space is perceived as mass and that of time dimension as motion as well time dilation.
An abridged version of my model can be accessed at indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issue.4/april11navyug (Trinity model of universe)
I have recently published my hypothesis for unification of forces of nature: The Trinity model of universe.
The basic presumption of my model is uniform distribution of pure energy in the 4-dimensional space-time in the pre-perceptible universe. This forms a non-changing uniform system which contains the entire time-dimension in it. Such a system does not perceive empty space or time. In other words, energy during this ‘initial’ stage is omnipresent and omniscient.
Then there is a development (akin to Big Bang of standard model) (I suggest development of a fifth dimension capable of concentrating energy in itself), which leads to formation of localized concentrations of energy. Along with it 4-D space-time also gets concentrated and deformed due to non-negotiable relationship between energy and space-time. Thus the manifest Universe is born. Such localizations in the 5-D system are nothing but primordial matter particles containing concentrated energy. These are inherently capable of deforming space-time. The deformation of 3-D space is perceived as mass and that of time dimension as motion as well time dilation.
An abridged version of my model can be accessed at indjst.org/archive/vol.4.issue.4/april11navyug (Trinity model of universe)
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Jun 17 2011, 11:07 PM)
ok i thought i would jump on the crankzy bandwagon here a bit.
time and motion and distance are interrelated and dependent on each other in a classical world view.
given that S=1/2(V_i + V_f)t
time is a measure of distance and acceleration.
so if we bend space-time the distance is shorter or longer, and time changes because of the interrelated-ness of the physical laws.
that is my thoughts on why velocity changes time.
as for mass i'm not sure.
what you mentioned is the answer for both things
1.why time slows when traveled at high speed(as you explained)
2.why time slows around a huge mass.
let me explain this..
by theory of relativity we know that gravity is nothing but acceleration.. a more apt question would be why the space-time continuum is curved.or at least why space is..
now assuming space-time continuum is curved.....consider the following:
1)A is in earth
2)A* is in space where is no influence of earth's gravity..both A and A* are similar objects(say a ball)
now A is to travel from a point X to a point Y with a velocity V...now when you observe from the earth(same reference as A),let the distance X to Y be 2metres..but when you observe from A*,the distance traveled by A is definitely greater than 2 meters..because A has to cope up with the movement of earth also..
but with both case of observations the velocity remains constant (property of velocity)
velocity = distance /time
velocity constant ,distance varies implies time varies between the two point of references.
this explains both cases 1. and 2.
time and motion and distance are interrelated and dependent on each other in a classical world view.
given that S=1/2(V_i + V_f)t
time is a measure of distance and acceleration.
so if we bend space-time the distance is shorter or longer, and time changes because of the interrelated-ness of the physical laws.
that is my thoughts on why velocity changes time.
as for mass i'm not sure.
what you mentioned is the answer for both things
1.why time slows when traveled at high speed(as you explained)
2.why time slows around a huge mass.
let me explain this..
by theory of relativity we know that gravity is nothing but acceleration.. a more apt question would be why the space-time continuum is curved.or at least why space is..
now assuming space-time continuum is curved.....consider the following:
1)A is in earth
2)A* is in space where is no influence of earth's gravity..both A and A* are similar objects(say a ball)
now A is to travel from a point X to a point Y with a velocity V...now when you observe from the earth(same reference as A),let the distance X to Y be 2metres..but when you observe from A*,the distance traveled by A is definitely greater than 2 meters..because A has to cope up with the movement of earth also..
but with both case of observations the velocity remains constant (property of velocity)
velocity = distance /time
velocity constant ,distance varies implies time varies between the two point of references.
this explains both cases 1. and 2.
the energy distribution that many has suggested has nothing to do with time dilation directly. the energy distribution(rather entropies) plays a role in curving the space around a huge mass.this curved space causes acceleration(gravity)of nearby particles,which in turn results in time dilation.
[the energy distribution that many has suggested has nothing to do with time dilation directly. the energy distribution(rather entropies) plays a role in curving the space around a huge mass.this curved space causes acceleration(gravity)of nearby particles,which in turn results in time dilation]
And why does space curvature occur near a huge mass? How do you explain this?
It is not only huge mass, but even a small matter particle deforms the space around it. If time is considered as 4th dimension, why is it not deformed with energy distribution/concentration when other spatial dimensions get deformed.
..and time dilation is not only perceived by the 'nearby' particles but by the mass in question also. Thus a more fundamental phenomenon should lie beneath it. Energy concentration in a matter particle leads to deformation of spatial and time dimensions which explains the phenomenon of time dilation both due to mass as well as due to motion.
And why does space curvature occur near a huge mass? How do you explain this?
It is not only huge mass, but even a small matter particle deforms the space around it. If time is considered as 4th dimension, why is it not deformed with energy distribution/concentration when other spatial dimensions get deformed.
..and time dilation is not only perceived by the 'nearby' particles but by the mass in question also. Thus a more fundamental phenomenon should lie beneath it. Energy concentration in a matter particle leads to deformation of spatial and time dimensions which explains the phenomenon of time dilation both due to mass as well as due to motion.
QUOTE (Navyug Sandhu+Jun 24 2011, 10:32 AM)
[the energy distribution that many has suggested has nothing to do with time dilation directly. the energy distribution(rather entropies) plays a role in curving the space around a huge mass.this curved space causes acceleration(gravity)of nearby particles,which in turn results in time dilation]
And why does space curvature occur near a huge mass? How do you explain this?
It is not only huge mass, but even a small matter particle deforms the space around it. If time is considered as 4th dimension, why is it not deformed with energy distribution/concentration when other spatial dimensions get deformed.
..and time dilation is not only perceived by the 'nearby' particles but by the mass in question also. Thus a more fundamental phenomenon should lie beneath it. Energy concentration in a matter particle leads to deformation of spatial and time dimensions which explains the phenomenon of time dilation both due to mass as well as due to motion.
yes indeed energy concentration in the mass leads to curvature of space and space alone..
to get this,get your facts straight about time.time is considered as a fouth dimension for the ease of calculations..energy concentration affects time by bending the space.
time is just a unit of measurement.time is an illusion..it is a quantity of mind.
time exists because you have memories.
time is there so that all particles would not be at the same place at the same instant..
universe doesn't care about time,just about the relative positions of the particles.
it is us humans who experience time.
time dilation is due to curvature of space(acceleration)
no direct connection between energy conc.and time
And why does space curvature occur near a huge mass? How do you explain this?
It is not only huge mass, but even a small matter particle deforms the space around it. If time is considered as 4th dimension, why is it not deformed with energy distribution/concentration when other spatial dimensions get deformed.
..and time dilation is not only perceived by the 'nearby' particles but by the mass in question also. Thus a more fundamental phenomenon should lie beneath it. Energy concentration in a matter particle leads to deformation of spatial and time dimensions which explains the phenomenon of time dilation both due to mass as well as due to motion.
yes indeed energy concentration in the mass leads to curvature of space and space alone..
to get this,get your facts straight about time.time is considered as a fouth dimension for the ease of calculations..energy concentration affects time by bending the space.
time is just a unit of measurement.time is an illusion..it is a quantity of mind.
time exists because you have memories.
time is there so that all particles would not be at the same place at the same instant..
universe doesn't care about time,just about the relative positions of the particles.
it is us humans who experience time.
time dilation is due to curvature of space(acceleration)
no direct connection between energy conc.and time
QUOTE (selva kumar+Jun 24 2011, 10:21 AM)
universe doesn't care about time,just about the relative positions of the particles.
it is us humans who experience time.
I respectfully disagree with you on this for this simple reason.
The universe in not static (it has changed and continues to change). Any empirical change requires a change of position, temperature requires a change of position, a change of position requires time. Without time there can be no empirical change of position, hence no change.
My own thoughts of exactly what time is differ slightly from the generally accepted view; however that thought is outside the realm what is currently being discussed.
Maxila
it is us humans who experience time.
I respectfully disagree with you on this for this simple reason.
The universe in not static (it has changed and continues to change). Any empirical change requires a change of position, temperature requires a change of position, a change of position requires time. Without time there can be no empirical change of position, hence no change.
My own thoughts of exactly what time is differ slightly from the generally accepted view; however that thought is outside the realm what is currently being discussed.
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Jun 24 2011, 05:31 PM)
I respectfully disagree with you on this for this simple reason.
The universe in not static (it has changed and continues to change). Any empirical change requires a change of position, temperature requires a change of position, a change of position requires time. Without time there can be no empirical change of position, hence no change.
My own thoughts of exactly what time is differ slightly from the generally accepted view; however that thought is outside the realm what is currently being discussed.
Maxila
i too respectly disagree with you..
the change of positions is what that matters to the universe..it doesn't have a copy of its previous position,as we have in our memories.
only humans can experience time.it is a unit of measurement,created by us.
The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real .Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.
QUOTE (selva kumar+Jun 24 2011, 12:40 PM)
the change of positions is what that matters to the universe..it doesn't have a copy of its previous position,as we have in our memories.
Memory is not why I say time needs to exists. Any change in position requires a separation (a differences of points), that difference or separation is what I mean by time.
I agree with you in the same way I would agree that distance it is a unit of measurement, created by us. To clarify, I would say that distance is a human created measure of a physical separation, and time is a human measure of a physical change of position and it's magnitude (magnitude is what most of us would think of as velocity). However the physical phenomena of separation, and change of position with magnitude, both exist.
I agree with you in the same way I would agree that distance it is a unit of measurement, created by us. To clarify, I would say that distance is a human created measure of a physical separation, and time is a human measure of a physical change of position and it's magnitude (magnitude is what most of us would think of as velocity). However the physical phenomena of separation, and change of position with magnitude, both exist.
The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol.
First I want to make it clear I believe the equations of physics are the best language we have to describe the universe. However I also believe many physics don't consider often enough that even when a equation works and makes sense mathematically it can still describe a physically empirical impossibility, i.e. that time can flow backwards.
Because I know I may get some arguments on the, "if time can flow backwards analogy", I'll clarify my statement a bit more. I can say the following:
"A human from the earth, walking at three MPH, would reach the moon at 250,000 miles away in x amount of time." This sentence can be turned into a precise mathematical equation, the equation can be solved sensibly, observations and experiments can be devised that might further validate it's correctness. There's only one problem... A human cannot physically walk from the Earth to the Moon.
I'm merely trying to point out that even in what appears to be a valid mathematical equation, there may exist a physical impossibility. I am not trying to discredit mathematics.
Maxila
Memory is not why I say time needs to exists. Any change in position requires a separation (a differences of points), that difference or separation is what I mean by time.
I agree with you in the same way I would agree that distance it is a unit of measurement, created by us. To clarify, I would say that distance is a human created measure of a physical separation, and time is a human measure of a physical change of position and it's magnitude (magnitude is what most of us would think of as velocity). However the physical phenomena of separation, and change of position with magnitude, both exist.
First I want to make it clear I believe the equations of physics are the best language we have to describe the universe. However I also believe many physics don't consider often enough that even when a equation works and makes sense mathematically it can still describe a physically empirical impossibility, i.e. that time can flow backwards.
Because I know I may get some arguments on the, "if time can flow backwards analogy", I'll clarify my statement a bit more. I can say the following:
"A human from the earth, walking at three MPH, would reach the moon at 250,000 miles away in x amount of time." This sentence can be turned into a precise mathematical equation, the equation can be solved sensibly, observations and experiments can be devised that might further validate it's correctness. There's only one problem... A human cannot physically walk from the Earth to the Moon.
I'm merely trying to point out that even in what appears to be a valid mathematical equation, there may exist a physical impossibility. I am not trying to discredit mathematics.
Maxila
aah..i dont know how to quote only part of what you said other than backspacing all of them..
so,what is your conclusion ?
u mentioned distance and magnitude both are physical phenomena..yes they are, but it differs from existence.
you are not getting my point.The universe doesn't care about time at all..it only us humans,for measurements..
It’s actually those energy flows
This goes right to the point I'm trying to make. Explain what any energy is, or how it can flow without motion (a change of position with magnitude)? It can't be done. Just because we call the measurement of motion time, doesn't make it any less of a fundamental phenomenon necessary for the Universe to exist.
Saying time doesn't exist is paramount to saying motion doesn't exist. As such energy couldn't be defined or exist, thus matter wouldn't exist as E=MC^2 tells they are the same thing.
As I said previously just because time is a human created measurement doesn't mean it doesn't measure something very fundamental and real. It would be like saying distance doesn't exist because it is a human created measurement of separation. Time is the human created measurement of motion.
Maxila
This goes right to the point I'm trying to make. Explain what any energy is, or how it can flow without motion (a change of position with magnitude)? It can't be done. Just because we call the measurement of motion time, doesn't make it any less of a fundamental phenomenon necessary for the Universe to exist.
Saying time doesn't exist is paramount to saying motion doesn't exist. As such energy couldn't be defined or exist, thus matter wouldn't exist as E=MC^2 tells they are the same thing.
As I said previously just because time is a human created measurement doesn't mean it doesn't measure something very fundamental and real. It would be like saying distance doesn't exist because it is a human created measurement of separation. Time is the human created measurement of motion.
Maxila
nope...
now i get what you don't get..
by agreeing that it is a unit of measurement,you first need to get it straight on what does "unit of measurements" mean..let it be 'length' or 'time'..
these units are there so they would help us in COMPARISON.
if you say u are measuring the velocity(rather speed) of your car,you will calculate the distance the car traveled and you will find the distance traveled by the arrows in your watch.you compare it and label it TIME.
to make it clearer,lets go before the invention of watches or any devices.
you will compare the distance traveled by your car with distance traveled by the sun.
you will always need a reference while you are calculating velocity.because this reference its the your standard object for comparison.
even with flow of energy,its relative distance covered when your reference is covering a known distance.
well time is like money...we dont directly trade of our things to the things we want,we use a medium,money..
definitely trade will go on without money,same is the case with universe without time..
but,money makes life a lot easier..
Memory is not why I say time needs to exists. Any change in position requires a separation (a differences of points), that difference or separation is what I mean by time.
QUOTE
time, it is a unit of measurement, created by us
I agree with you in the same way I would agree that distance it is a unit of measurement, created by us. To clarify, I would say that distance is a human created measure of a physical separation, and time is a human measure of a physical change of position and it's magnitude (magnitude is what most of us would think of as velocity). However the physical phenomena of separation, and change of position with magnitude, both exist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| time, it is a unit of measurement, created by us |
I agree with you in the same way I would agree that distance it is a unit of measurement, created by us. To clarify, I would say that distance is a human created measure of a physical separation, and time is a human measure of a physical change of position and it's magnitude (magnitude is what most of us would think of as velocity). However the physical phenomena of separation, and change of position with magnitude, both exist.
The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol.
First I want to make it clear I believe the equations of physics are the best language we have to describe the universe. However I also believe many physics don't consider often enough that even when a equation works and makes sense mathematically it can still describe a physically empirical impossibility, i.e. that time can flow backwards.
Because I know I may get some arguments on the, "if time can flow backwards analogy", I'll clarify my statement a bit more. I can say the following:
"A human from the earth, walking at three MPH, would reach the moon at 250,000 miles away in x amount of time." This sentence can be turned into a precise mathematical equation, the equation can be solved sensibly, observations and experiments can be devised that might further validate it's correctness. There's only one problem... A human cannot physically walk from the Earth to the Moon.
I'm merely trying to point out that even in what appears to be a valid mathematical equation, there may exist a physical impossibility. I am not trying to discredit mathematics.
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Jun 24 2011, 06:57 PM)
Memory is not why I say time needs to exists. Any change in position requires a separation (a differences of points), that difference or separation is what I mean by time.
I agree with you in the same way I would agree that distance it is a unit of measurement, created by us. To clarify, I would say that distance is a human created measure of a physical separation, and time is a human measure of a physical change of position and it's magnitude (magnitude is what most of us would think of as velocity). However the physical phenomena of separation, and change of position with magnitude, both exist.
First I want to make it clear I believe the equations of physics are the best language we have to describe the universe. However I also believe many physics don't consider often enough that even when a equation works and makes sense mathematically it can still describe a physically empirical impossibility, i.e. that time can flow backwards.
Because I know I may get some arguments on the, "if time can flow backwards analogy", I'll clarify my statement a bit more. I can say the following:
"A human from the earth, walking at three MPH, would reach the moon at 250,000 miles away in x amount of time." This sentence can be turned into a precise mathematical equation, the equation can be solved sensibly, observations and experiments can be devised that might further validate it's correctness. There's only one problem... A human cannot physically walk from the Earth to the Moon.
I'm merely trying to point out that even in what appears to be a valid mathematical equation, there may exist a physical impossibility. I am not trying to discredit mathematics.
Maxila
aah..i dont know how to quote only part of what you said other than backspacing all of them..
so,what is your conclusion ?
u mentioned distance and magnitude both are physical phenomena..yes they are, but it differs from existence.
you are not getting my point.The universe doesn't care about time at all..it only us humans,for measurements..
einstein believed in the timelessness of the universe.He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence.
QUOTE (selva kumar+Jun 24 2011, 02:19 PM)
so,what is your conclusion ?
u mentioned distance and magnitude both are physical phenomena..yes they are, but it differs from existence.
My conclusion is that a change of position with magnitude, is a physical phenomena that "matters" to the Universe. Whether you call it time, or as I described above (change of position with magnitude) is semantics.
Time and distance are measurement standards created by humans I agree; however they measure things that are very real and important, separation (distance), and change of position with magnitude (time). They are both matter to the Universe.
The Universe does care because this physical phenomena is responsible for any change in the Universe. Without any change of position nothing would exist. If the Universe were conscious, I believe it would care that it might not exist without time.
Maxila
u mentioned distance and magnitude both are physical phenomena..yes they are, but it differs from existence.
My conclusion is that a change of position with magnitude, is a physical phenomena that "matters" to the Universe. Whether you call it time, or as I described above (change of position with magnitude) is semantics.
Time and distance are measurement standards created by humans I agree; however they measure things that are very real and important, separation (distance), and change of position with magnitude (time). They are both matter to the Universe.
QUOTE
you are not getting my point.The universe doesn't care about time at all..it only us humans,for measurements..
The Universe does care because this physical phenomena is responsible for any change in the Universe. Without any change of position nothing would exist. If the Universe were conscious, I believe it would care that it might not exist without time.
Maxila
QUOTE (selva kumar+Jun 23 2011, 05:11 PM)
what you mentioned is the answer for both things
1.why time slows when traveled at high speed(as you explained)
2.why time slows around a huge mass.
let me explain this..
by theory of relativity we know that gravity is nothing but acceleration.. a more apt question would be why the space-time continuum is curved.or at least why space is..
now assuming space-time continuum is curved.....consider the following:
1)A is in earth
2)A* is in space where is no influence of earth's gravity..both A and A* are similar objects(say a ball)
now A is to travel from a point X to a point Y with a velocity V...now when you observe from the earth(same reference as A),let the distance X to Y be 2metres..but when you observe from A*,the distance traveled by A is definitely greater than 2 meters..because A has to cope up with the movement of earth also..
but with both case of observations the velocity remains constant (property of velocity)
velocity = distance /time
velocity constant ,distance varies implies time varies between the two point of references.
this explains both cases 1. and 2.
the complex conjugate of A, (A*) is a little confusing, i do however get your point...
I think.
so your not saying that A and A* are transposed matrices and are simply using it as a way to differentiate A and lets say A' (A prime)?
1.why time slows when traveled at high speed(as you explained)
2.why time slows around a huge mass.
let me explain this..
by theory of relativity we know that gravity is nothing but acceleration.. a more apt question would be why the space-time continuum is curved.or at least why space is..
now assuming space-time continuum is curved.....consider the following:
1)A is in earth
2)A* is in space where is no influence of earth's gravity..both A and A* are similar objects(say a ball)
now A is to travel from a point X to a point Y with a velocity V...now when you observe from the earth(same reference as A),let the distance X to Y be 2metres..but when you observe from A*,the distance traveled by A is definitely greater than 2 meters..because A has to cope up with the movement of earth also..
but with both case of observations the velocity remains constant (property of velocity)
velocity = distance /time
velocity constant ,distance varies implies time varies between the two point of references.
this explains both cases 1. and 2.
the complex conjugate of A, (A*) is a little confusing, i do however get your point...
I think.
so your not saying that A and A* are transposed matrices and are simply using it as a way to differentiate A and lets say A' (A prime)?
@ Selva Kumar
Humans perceive the time and distance and record them as past, future (due to memories). The universes and every thing material in the universe also perceive time although may not register them as past or future. If they didn't perceive time, there wouldn't have been the waves that vibrate becoz of the time, there wouldn't have been the principle of entropy and the arrow of time.
If time is an illusion, then you should agree that space and distance as well is also an illusion. These illusions are perceived due to loss of instantaneous information. If distance expresses the separation of information, time expresses the delay in information. (..and i don't mean here that information is only perceived by a sentient being only)
Space and time are thus two facets of the same coin. If we visualize the space having multiple dimensions, we should consider time as one of its dimension rather than considering it just a psychological phenomenon. And why not...if it solves so many mysteries like e.g. time dilation simply.
Humans perceive the time and distance and record them as past, future (due to memories). The universes and every thing material in the universe also perceive time although may not register them as past or future. If they didn't perceive time, there wouldn't have been the waves that vibrate becoz of the time, there wouldn't have been the principle of entropy and the arrow of time.
If time is an illusion, then you should agree that space and distance as well is also an illusion. These illusions are perceived due to loss of instantaneous information. If distance expresses the separation of information, time expresses the delay in information. (..and i don't mean here that information is only perceived by a sentient being only)
Space and time are thus two facets of the same coin. If we visualize the space having multiple dimensions, we should consider time as one of its dimension rather than considering it just a psychological phenomenon. And why not...if it solves so many mysteries like e.g. time dilation simply.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Jun 24 2011, 08:49 PM)
the complex conjugate of A, (A*) is a little confusing, i do however get your point...
I think.
so your not saying that A and A* are transposed matrices and are simply using it as a way to differentiate A and lets say A' (A prime)?
A and A* doesnt matter..
take it as A and B..
I think.
so your not saying that A and A* are transposed matrices and are simply using it as a way to differentiate A and lets say A' (A prime)?
A and A* doesnt matter..
take it as A and B..
QUOTE (Navyug Sandhu+Jun 25 2011, 08:30 AM)
@ Selva Kumar
Humans perceive the time and distance and record them as past, future (due to memories). The universes and every thing material in the universe also perceive time although may not register them as past or future. If they didn't perceive time, there wouldn't have been the waves that vibrate becoz of the time, there wouldn't have been the principle of entropy and the arrow of time.
If time is an illusion, then you should agree that space and distance as well is also an illusion. These illusions are perceived due to loss of instantaneous information. If distance expresses the separation of information, time expresses the delay in information. (..and i don't mean here that information is only perceived by a sentient being only)
Space and time are thus two facets of the same coin. If we visualize the space having multiple dimensions, we should consider time as one of its dimension rather than considering it just a psychological phenomenon. And why not...if it solves so many mysteries like e.g. time dilation simply.
but time dilation is explained even simpler by considering what i have explained previously for time dilation..both 1.near a huge mass and 2.in a speeding object.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."-Einstein
then what are arrows of time ? flow of time ?
It’s actually those energy flows, scattering randomly from events that thus can’t run in reverse (since they’d need a random focused input of energy – a contradiction) or circulating round to form material particles.
they are nothing but direction of distribution of energy.this is entropy.
Humans perceive the time and distance and record them as past, future (due to memories). The universes and every thing material in the universe also perceive time although may not register them as past or future. If they didn't perceive time, there wouldn't have been the waves that vibrate becoz of the time, there wouldn't have been the principle of entropy and the arrow of time.
If time is an illusion, then you should agree that space and distance as well is also an illusion. These illusions are perceived due to loss of instantaneous information. If distance expresses the separation of information, time expresses the delay in information. (..and i don't mean here that information is only perceived by a sentient being only)
Space and time are thus two facets of the same coin. If we visualize the space having multiple dimensions, we should consider time as one of its dimension rather than considering it just a psychological phenomenon. And why not...if it solves so many mysteries like e.g. time dilation simply.
but time dilation is explained even simpler by considering what i have explained previously for time dilation..both 1.near a huge mass and 2.in a speeding object.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."-Einstein
then what are arrows of time ? flow of time ?
It’s actually those energy flows, scattering randomly from events that thus can’t run in reverse (since they’d need a random focused input of energy – a contradiction) or circulating round to form material particles.
they are nothing but direction of distribution of energy.this is entropy.
QUOTE (selva kumar+Jun 25 2011, 04:24 AM)
It’s actually those energy flows
This goes right to the point I'm trying to make. Explain what any energy is, or how it can flow without motion (a change of position with magnitude)? It can't be done. Just because we call the measurement of motion time, doesn't make it any less of a fundamental phenomenon necessary for the Universe to exist.
Saying time doesn't exist is paramount to saying motion doesn't exist. As such energy couldn't be defined or exist, thus matter wouldn't exist as E=MC^2 tells they are the same thing.
As I said previously just because time is a human created measurement doesn't mean it doesn't measure something very fundamental and real. It would be like saying distance doesn't exist because it is a human created measurement of separation. Time is the human created measurement of motion.
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Jun 25 2011, 07:40 PM)
This goes right to the point I'm trying to make. Explain what any energy is, or how it can flow without motion (a change of position with magnitude)? It can't be done. Just because we call the measurement of motion time, doesn't make it any less of a fundamental phenomenon necessary for the Universe to exist.
Saying time doesn't exist is paramount to saying motion doesn't exist. As such energy couldn't be defined or exist, thus matter wouldn't exist as E=MC^2 tells they are the same thing.
As I said previously just because time is a human created measurement doesn't mean it doesn't measure something very fundamental and real. It would be like saying distance doesn't exist because it is a human created measurement of separation. Time is the human created measurement of motion.
Maxila
nope...
now i get what you don't get..
by agreeing that it is a unit of measurement,you first need to get it straight on what does "unit of measurements" mean..let it be 'length' or 'time'..
these units are there so they would help us in COMPARISON.
if you say u are measuring the velocity(rather speed) of your car,you will calculate the distance the car traveled and you will find the distance traveled by the arrows in your watch.you compare it and label it TIME.
to make it clearer,lets go before the invention of watches or any devices.
you will compare the distance traveled by your car with distance traveled by the sun.
you will always need a reference while you are calculating velocity.because this reference its the your standard object for comparison.
even with flow of energy,its relative distance covered when your reference is covering a known distance.
well time is like money...we dont directly trade of our things to the things we want,we use a medium,money..
definitely trade will go on without money,same is the case with universe without time..
but,money makes life a lot easier..
QUOTE (selva kumar+Jun 26 2011, 05:45 AM)
nope...
now i get what you don't get..
by agreeing that it is a unit of measurement,you first need to get it straight on what does "unit of measurements" mean..let it be 'length' or 'time'..
these units are there so they would help us in COMPARISON.
if you say u are measuring the velocity(rather speed) of your car,you will calculate the distance the car traveled and you will find the distance traveled by the arrows in your watch.you compare it and label it TIME.
to make it clearer,lets go before the invention of watches or any devices.
you will compare the distance traveled by your car with distance traveled by the sun.
you will always need a reference while you are calculating velocity.because this reference its the your standard object for comparison.
even with flow of energy,its relative distance covered when your reference is covering a known distance.
well time is like money...we dont directly trade of our things to the things we want,we use a medium,money..
definitely trade will go on without money,same is the case with universe without time..
but,money makes life a lot easier..
Steve:
If you can't answer the question I have asked several times already (which you have not addressed yet), the rest of your arguments are mute. I will ask it one last time:
Every empirical thing in our Universe in any state, has a common element of motion of varying velocities (change of position of varying magnitudes). Without motion you cannot have energy, without energy you cannot have matter. If you argue all motion (change of position) is instantaneous there would be no variations of any-kind, the universe would be a homogeneous mass.
I have, and continue to agree time is a comparative measurement, but it measures a fundamental phenomena, how can you explain any energy, any differential in a state of matter or energy, without motion-velocity? Any differential in velocity (change of position of varying magnitude) requires the phenomena that time measures. Until you can explain how there can be varying degrees of motion , or explain how the universe can exist without varying degrees of motion, any argument that time doesn't exists is meaningless. Even temperature requires a differential of motion, unless you think temperature doesn't really exists also?
Maxila
now i get what you don't get..
by agreeing that it is a unit of measurement,you first need to get it straight on what does "unit of measurements" mean..let it be 'length' or 'time'..
these units are there so they would help us in COMPARISON.
if you say u are measuring the velocity(rather speed) of your car,you will calculate the distance the car traveled and you will find the distance traveled by the arrows in your watch.you compare it and label it TIME.
to make it clearer,lets go before the invention of watches or any devices.
you will compare the distance traveled by your car with distance traveled by the sun.
you will always need a reference while you are calculating velocity.because this reference its the your standard object for comparison.
even with flow of energy,its relative distance covered when your reference is covering a known distance.
well time is like money...we dont directly trade of our things to the things we want,we use a medium,money..
definitely trade will go on without money,same is the case with universe without time..
but,money makes life a lot easier..
Steve:
If you can't answer the question I have asked several times already (which you have not addressed yet), the rest of your arguments are mute. I will ask it one last time:
Every empirical thing in our Universe in any state, has a common element of motion of varying velocities (change of position of varying magnitudes). Without motion you cannot have energy, without energy you cannot have matter. If you argue all motion (change of position) is instantaneous there would be no variations of any-kind, the universe would be a homogeneous mass.
I have, and continue to agree time is a comparative measurement, but it measures a fundamental phenomena, how can you explain any energy, any differential in a state of matter or energy, without motion-velocity? Any differential in velocity (change of position of varying magnitude) requires the phenomena that time measures. Until you can explain how there can be varying degrees of motion , or explain how the universe can exist without varying degrees of motion, any argument that time doesn't exists is meaningless. Even temperature requires a differential of motion, unless you think temperature doesn't really exists also?
Maxila
QUOTE (Maxila+Jun 27 2011, 04:52 PM)
Steve:
If you can't answer the question I have asked several times already (which you have not addressed yet), the rest of your arguments are mute. I will ask it one last time:
Every empirical thing in our Universe in any state, has a common element of motion of varying velocities (change of position of varying magnitudes). Without motion you cannot have energy, without energy you cannot have matter. If you argue all motion (change of position) is instantaneous there would be no variations of any-kind, the universe would be a homogeneous mass.
I have, and continue to agree time is a comparative measurement, but it measures a fundamental phenomena, how can you explain any energy, any differential in a state of matter or energy, without motion-velocity? Any differential in velocity (change of position of varying magnitude) requires the phenomena that time measures. Until you can explain how there can be varying degrees of motion , or explain how the universe can exist without varying degrees of motion, any argument that time doesn't exists is meaningless. Even temperature requires a differential of motion, unless you think temperature doesn't really exists also?
Maxila
what you call motion is the order of events...
It is similar to a TV screen,continous display of pictures and you call it motion picture.
you are taking things in the reverse order.
Since there is energy ,there is a motion(specific order of events)
energy causes motion and energy is in the motion.
Again i don't know how to quote only part of your argument..
you :" if you argue all motion(change of position) is instantaneous there would be no variations of any-king...
for a particular particle in this universe,all the positions, it has been at,is being at,will be at are all equally real. It is our mind which perceives them as past,present and future.. or earlier and later..
so why there is only a particular order of events or motion as we see it..?
there are a lot of orders(aka parallel universe)..we are able to perceive the only order of which we are part of..
you:"Any differential in velocity (change of position of varying magnitude) requires the phenomena that time measures.."
why? It is varying magnitude that is required.varying energy. It is caused by deflation and expansion of space..
Again deflation and expansion is motion (order of events)..It is the order that takes importance..
arguments usually leave people thinking that the other person was too close minded..
If you can't answer the question I have asked several times already (which you have not addressed yet), the rest of your arguments are mute. I will ask it one last time:
Every empirical thing in our Universe in any state, has a common element of motion of varying velocities (change of position of varying magnitudes). Without motion you cannot have energy, without energy you cannot have matter. If you argue all motion (change of position) is instantaneous there would be no variations of any-kind, the universe would be a homogeneous mass.
I have, and continue to agree time is a comparative measurement, but it measures a fundamental phenomena, how can you explain any energy, any differential in a state of matter or energy, without motion-velocity? Any differential in velocity (change of position of varying magnitude) requires the phenomena that time measures. Until you can explain how there can be varying degrees of motion , or explain how the universe can exist without varying degrees of motion, any argument that time doesn't exists is meaningless. Even temperature requires a differential of motion, unless you think temperature doesn't really exists also?
Maxila
what you call motion is the order of events...
It is similar to a TV screen,continous display of pictures and you call it motion picture.
you are taking things in the reverse order.
Since there is energy ,there is a motion(specific order of events)
energy causes motion and energy is in the motion.
Again i don't know how to quote only part of your argument..
you :" if you argue all motion(change of position) is instantaneous there would be no variations of any-king...
for a particular particle in this universe,all the positions, it has been at,is being at,will be at are all equally real. It is our mind which perceives them as past,present and future.. or earlier and later..
so why there is only a particular order of events or motion as we see it..?
there are a lot of orders(aka parallel universe)..we are able to perceive the only order of which we are part of..
you:"Any differential in velocity (change of position of varying magnitude) requires the phenomena that time measures.."
why? It is varying magnitude that is required.varying energy. It is caused by deflation and expansion of space..
Again deflation and expansion is motion (order of events)..It is the order that takes importance..
arguments usually leave people thinking that the other person was too close minded..
QUOTE (selva kumar+Jun 27 2011, 01:42 PM)
what you call motion is the order of events...
No, motion is more then an order of events it also has a velocity (magnitude) that requires the phenomena that times measures to exist.
..and motion requires a magnitude and order of events (time).
The problem is you haven't explained how that is possible without the phenomena that time measures (a magnitude of change and a order of events)?
..and motion requires a magnitude and order of events (time).
The problem is you haven't explained how that is possible without the phenomena that time measures (a magnitude of change and a order of events)?
for a particular particle in this universe, all the positions, it has been at,is being at,will be at are all equally real. It is our mind which perceives them as past,present and future.. or earlier and later..
That explanation doesn't account for the particles existence at any position you may choose? A necessary aspect of it's existence at any position is temperature. Temperature is a direct result of variable motion (motion>0, motion<infinity). In the explanation above you can't account for that particles existence or temperatures at any position without a variable motion (a magnitude of its change of position and order of events).
Every frame is made up of particles in motion, whether the entire frame appears to be moving (looks like a motion picture) or not.
Every frame is made up of particles in motion, whether the entire frame appears to be moving (looks like a motion picture) or not.
It is varying magnitude that is required.varying energy. It is caused by deflation and expansion of space..
Everything in this sentence requires an order of events and magnitude of change and contradicts the statement a particle exists in all positions at once?
I'm not closed minded, I'm looking for a explanation of the glaring issues I asked about; instead I get a reworked paraphrase of your idea, and statements that are a contradictions.
Maxila
but isn't the fact that time varies to maintain velocity (magnitude) constant discredit this ?
In light rays there is oscillation of particles..oscillation implies motion and it requires time as you said.
Now consider,you are moving along with that light ray in lightspeed,now according to relativity,time stops in your frame.In other words,there is no flow of time in your point of reference.But still you can see the light ray..there is oscillation of particles.There is motion without time.
but isn't the fact that time varies to maintain velocity (magnitude) constant discredit this ?
In light rays there is oscillation of particles..oscillation implies motion and it requires time as you said.
Now consider,you are moving along with that light ray in lightspeed,now according to relativity,time stops in your frame.In other words,there is no flow of time in your point of reference.But still you can see the light ray..there is oscillation of particles.There is motion without time.
Every frame is made up of particles in motion, whether the entire frame appears to be moving (looks like a motion picture) or not.
Irrelevant..to the point i am trying to make. Even a display of stationary points results in motion.
yes..Now i see that i was wrong in saying time is completely illusory..it is relative,not an absolute quantity.
time is illusory leads to energy being an illusion and entire physical reality be illusion..supporting the argument that physical reality is only a shared dream..In that case universe as we perceive requires time.
I am not sure of this and about the concept of time now..
sorry,i couldn't explain your glaring issues. It is hard to discuss about time without first assuming time.
But then how would you explain the relative nature of time ?
yes..Now i see that i was wrong in saying time is completely illusory..it is relative,not an absolute quantity.
time is illusory leads to energy being an illusion and entire physical reality be illusion..supporting the argument that physical reality is only a shared dream..In that case universe as we perceive requires time.
I am not sure of this and about the concept of time now..
sorry,i couldn't explain your glaring issues. It is hard to discuss about time without first assuming time.
But then how would you explain the relative nature of time ?
I'm not closed minded
I was talking about me
Only then,i could get stronger arguments against what i believe.
No, motion is more then an order of events it also has a velocity (magnitude) that requires the phenomena that times measures to exist.
QUOTE
energy causes motion and energy is in the motion.
..and motion requires a magnitude and order of events (time).
The problem is you haven't explained how that is possible without the phenomena that time measures (a magnitude of change and a order of events)?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| energy causes motion and energy is in the motion. |
..and motion requires a magnitude and order of events (time).
The problem is you haven't explained how that is possible without the phenomena that time measures (a magnitude of change and a order of events)?
for a particular particle in this universe, all the positions, it has been at,is being at,will be at are all equally real. It is our mind which perceives them as past,present and future.. or earlier and later..
That explanation doesn't account for the particles existence at any position you may choose? A necessary aspect of it's existence at any position is temperature. Temperature is a direct result of variable motion (motion>0, motion<infinity). In the explanation above you can't account for that particles existence or temperatures at any position without a variable motion (a magnitude of its change of position and order of events).
QUOTE
TV screen,continuous display of pictures and you call it motion picture.
Every frame is made up of particles in motion, whether the entire frame appears to be moving (looks like a motion picture) or not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| TV screen,continuous display of pictures and you call it motion picture. |
Every frame is made up of particles in motion, whether the entire frame appears to be moving (looks like a motion picture) or not.
It is varying magnitude that is required.varying energy. It is caused by deflation and expansion of space..
Everything in this sentence requires an order of events and magnitude of change and contradicts the statement a particle exists in all positions at once?
QUOTE
arguments usually leave people thinking that the other person was too close minded..
I'm not closed minded, I'm looking for a explanation of the glaring issues I asked about; instead I get a reworked paraphrase of your idea, and statements that are a contradictions.
Maxila
QUOTE
No, motion is more then an order of events it also has a velocity (magnitude) that requires the phenomena that times measures to exist.
but isn't the fact that time varies to maintain velocity (magnitude) constant discredit this ?
In light rays there is oscillation of particles..oscillation implies motion and it requires time as you said.
Now consider,you are moving along with that light ray in lightspeed,now according to relativity,time stops in your frame.In other words,there is no flow of time in your point of reference.But still you can see the light ray..there is oscillation of particles.There is motion without time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, motion is more then an order of events it also has a velocity (magnitude) that requires the phenomena that times measures to exist. |
but isn't the fact that time varies to maintain velocity (magnitude) constant discredit this ?
In light rays there is oscillation of particles..oscillation implies motion and it requires time as you said.
Now consider,you are moving along with that light ray in lightspeed,now according to relativity,time stops in your frame.In other words,there is no flow of time in your point of reference.But still you can see the light ray..there is oscillation of particles.There is motion without time.
Every frame is made up of particles in motion, whether the entire frame appears to be moving (looks like a motion picture) or not.
Irrelevant..to the point i am trying to make. Even a display of stationary points results in motion.
QUOTE
Everything in this sentence requires an order of events and magnitude of change and contradicts the statement a particle exists in all positions at once?
yes..Now i see that i was wrong in saying time is completely illusory..it is relative,not an absolute quantity.
time is illusory leads to energy being an illusion and entire physical reality be illusion..supporting the argument that physical reality is only a shared dream..In that case universe as we perceive requires time.
I am not sure of this and about the concept of time now..
sorry,i couldn't explain your glaring issues. It is hard to discuss about time without first assuming time.
But then how would you explain the relative nature of time ?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Everything in this sentence requires an order of events and magnitude of change and contradicts the statement a particle exists in all positions at once? |
yes..Now i see that i was wrong in saying time is completely illusory..it is relative,not an absolute quantity.
time is illusory leads to energy being an illusion and entire physical reality be illusion..supporting the argument that physical reality is only a shared dream..In that case universe as we perceive requires time.
I am not sure of this and about the concept of time now..
sorry,i couldn't explain your glaring issues. It is hard to discuss about time without first assuming time.
But then how would you explain the relative nature of time ?
I'm not closed minded
I was talking about me
Only then,i could get stronger arguments against what i believe.
It seems that not only large gravitational field (mass) slows time, but also analogously large electric field (charge) - for example muon lifetime is larger in muonic atoms than for free muon and electric time dilation is probably required to explain it:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wtr11w113r22g346/
Here can be found other papers and discussion.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wtr11w113r22g346/
Here can be found other papers and discussion.
Ah ah..all i said is consistent with this..
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010...eory-of_30.html
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010...eory-of_30.html
Maxila
You seem to be asking the question, if nothing moved would time still exist?
Well, all I can say is if it did exist, what good would it do, and you would not know that it did exist.
But this is a hypothetical question, as everything does move. It is not reality.
Why something happens is a theory, which can never be proven. Science therefore does not ask why something happens, it asks what happens.
We perceive the passage of time through exchanges of photons, and photons are created by the movement of elementary particles. thus if the particles did not move, there are no photons, and the universe is dark, i.e. we would not be aware of much of anything, much less the passage of time. there would be no cause and effect, no before or after events.
One can then ask if we would be conscious of the passage of time anyway, not being aware of anything else in the universe but our own existence?
You seem to be asking the question, if nothing moved would time still exist?
Well, all I can say is if it did exist, what good would it do, and you would not know that it did exist.
But this is a hypothetical question, as everything does move. It is not reality.
Why something happens is a theory, which can never be proven. Science therefore does not ask why something happens, it asks what happens.
We perceive the passage of time through exchanges of photons, and photons are created by the movement of elementary particles. thus if the particles did not move, there are no photons, and the universe is dark, i.e. we would not be aware of much of anything, much less the passage of time. there would be no cause and effect, no before or after events.
One can then ask if we would be conscious of the passage of time anyway, not being aware of anything else in the universe but our own existence?
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.