what is time ?

amrit

20th January 2006 - 10:41 PM

All in the universe is energy: matter is energy, electromagnetic waves are energy, cosmic space is a kind of energy
We have to ask ourselves: what is time ?
There are two options:
1.time is energy
2. time is movement of energy

For me second options sounds better. There is no formula in physics where time is energy and it is good to remain so.

In the universe there is no absolute motion in sense that there is no still point from which you could measure the speed of two objects moving. For me that’s the most beautiful insight of SR.

So in every inertial system the speed of time (the speed of movement) , the speed of clocks is running by itself. The faster the speed of inertial system slower the speed of time. Two inertial systems are related with Lorentz transformation. IN ATPS theory the shrinking of space happens in all 4 dimensions, see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321

amrit

post scriptum: by considering that time is a movement we have to trop idea that time could run by itself into cosmic space, because movement can not exists without something is moving, movement (time) can not exists by itself

The only problem of The Theory of Relativity is that most of people did not understand it yet.

In so called "space-time continuum" time exist only as a movement into space. Movement and space can not be separated in any way. Only in this sense time is a part of space.

Zephir

21st January 2006 - 06:57 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Jan 21 2006, 01:41 AM)

what is time ? There are two options:
1. time is energy
2. time is movement of energy

Well, a third option is missing obviously: the time is nothing from given above.
Amrit, it's impossible to compose a scientific theories by such naive way...

The time cannot be both energy, both the motion of it, just because even the energy appearance (i.e. without any motion) is time event. When energy transforms to different forms (without any motion again), it's a time event too...

After all, the energy cannot move, just change. The energy has no center, which can be used for location of position of it. The energy is the state.

The time "doesn't care", whether some energy exists, or not. It's not dependent on its existence.

Well, I believe, the whole Universe at the current state can be described recursivelly by the wave equation, which connects the time, dimension, mass and energy quantities and supplies an unambiguous relation between them.

It's nice (well, it's my theory, after all..) but

1) it's only hypothesis
2) a long time before the Universe has switched to the harmonic state it was able to exist in a quite different (maybe chaotic, or whatever else...) state
3) and it doesn't explain, why all these quantites differs from each other and why the're exists at all. They're simply postulated by us for simplyfying our understanding of Universe.

But, why the Universe should be so simple? Why it should by described by such number of quantities? Maybe some other differential equation exists here, using a quite different topology, etc, etc...

Using a wave equation theory, I can agree with you, the time is tightly conected with both the mass motion, both the energy change. But the time isn't both the motion, both the change here, because it appears like a quite different quantity, and it even doesn't inherit from the relation between the motion and change, being a quite independent.

The Universe can contain just the energy changes, i.e. with no motion, or even it can be a trully chaotic or whatever, but it can exists in such regime for a long time, switching its states continuously. We will not be able to say, how old the universe exactly is after than, but it will be older and older obviously.

Even the Universe appearance itself is the time event, so we can say, the time runs independently to any existence. From this point of view, the time looks like very fundamental quantity, the true nature of it remains unclear (the quantity = the quantitative semantic category, which simplyfies the understanding).

After all, it's possible, the time is just an sensoric ilusion (like color or sound tone) which enables the causality understanding. But it should be proven at first.

amrit

21st January 2006 - 07:12 AM

Zephir: Well, a third option is missing obviously: the time is nothing from given above.

Amrit: Zephir I do not have time to discuss nons.

Zephir

21st January 2006 - 07:17 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Jan 21 2006, 10:12 AM)

Zephir I do not have time to discuss nons.

Well, exactly - and the "movement of energy" is pure nonsence. Energy has no location.

Why we should discuss it, after than?

amrit

21st January 2006 - 07:31 AM

energy is matter my dear
energy is photon my dear
energy is a proton..................

do not talk nonsense,

amrit

fivedoughnut

21st January 2006 - 07:36 AM

Perhaps we should discuss time from a photons perspective...i.e there is none!
This leaves only a spacial co-ordinate (frame of reference) system. By this I'm implying that a photon created a billion light years away and the photon receptor in your eye both occupy the same specific point.

I'm favouring this approach....let's heat up this "getting no-where" chit chat.

Zephir

21st January 2006 - 07:54 AM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 10:36 AM)

Perhaps we should discuss time from a photons perspective...i.e there is none!

I've nothing against it, but the photon is not the only boson available, after all it seems, it's not the elementary boson at all.

We can discuss the time from the Higgs boson or graviton perspective as well, if not better....

After all, I'm able to generalize the energy quantity and bring up a even more fundamental boson, resursivelly.

fivedoughnut

21st January 2006 - 07:57 AM

p.s All illusionary 1-D distance is that very same co-ordinate.

Zephir

21st January 2006 - 07:59 AM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 10:57 AM)

All illusionary 1-D distance is that very same co-ordinate.

You're right, but I believe, this is not the crucial point in definition of time.

amrit

21st January 2006 - 08:02 AM

FIVEDOUGHNUT: Perhaps we should discuss time from a photons perspective...i.e there is none!

Amrit: photon does not move in time, movement of the photon is time

The only problem of The Theory of Relativity is that most of people did not understand it yet. In so called "space-time continuum" time exist only as a movement into space. Movement and space can not be separated in any way. Only in this sense time is a part of space.

amrit

fivedoughnut

21st January 2006 - 08:14 AM

QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 21 2006, 07:54 AM)

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 10:36 AM)

Perhaps we should discuss time from a photons perspective...i.e there is none!

After all, I'm able to generalize the energy quantity and bring up a even more fundamental boson, resursivelly.

Zeph',

Bosons are for Bozo's. I'm fairly convinced that the concept of force carrying particles is merely an upheld myth to ensure long term salary influx to the particle colliding "old school thinking" mob.

Zephir

21st January 2006 - 08:38 AM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 11:14 AM)

Bosons are for Bozo's. I'm fairly convinced that the concept of force carrying particles is merely an upheld myth to ensure long term salary influx to the particle colliding "old school thinking" mob.

Well, you can bring up the bosons as the wave pockets (i.e. energy fluctuations)formed from fermion-antifermion sea and the fermions as the vortex-like vibration deformations (i.e. energy fluctuations) of such sea, recursivelly.

From this point of view, the only difference between the boson and fermion is just a observer role (i.e. the fact, whether he's formed by such fermion sea, or not). Each fermion can be expressed as the one-half spin result of supersymmetric pair of bosons and each the boson can be considered being the Cooper's pair of the corresponding fermions.

If you don't believe it, you can try to show me, which particle from the picture sequence bellow constitutes the boson and the fermion with certainty:

user posted image

If the bosons are able to create (anti)fermions, they can be usefull at least as the causal concept. But my understanding is somewhat deeper, and I can feel, the bosons can be defined a quite exactly as the energy wave pockets comming from the interference of the energy with its own density field. This is a reason, why the very energetic (i.e. high frequency photons) are moving like a true massive particles (see the Java applet bellow). After all, the so called vector bosons have non-zero rest mass, so that the difference between the bosons and fermions seems to be a guite formal here.

After all, something like energy or entropy doesn't exist at all from this point of view, they're just virtual quantities, which are simplyfing the understanding.
I reccomend, we should generalize the meaning of the word "existence", at first.

fivedoughnut

21st January 2006 - 09:43 AM

Zeph,

You've surpassed my understanding of things. However, your efforts seem unnecessary, as I feel the "make up" of the universe is a tad more simplistic.
You've just taken everything "on board" and made sense of it!....quite an achievement.

I'm a pragmatic "piss head" and "see" things in my very own frame of ref.

Having said this I'm pretty sure "the greater picture" is quite easy to cognise.
We just need a beautifully constructed model to attain this goal.

Zephir

21st January 2006 - 09:58 AM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 12:43 PM)

..as I feel the "make up" of the universe is a tad more simplistic...

Thanks, five.. As I've pointed out slightly before, the simplistic view can be very usefull. We need the very general insight as target of ideas, but the simplistic models of it are much more usefull with respect of practical understanding, than the very general ones.

But it must be always keep in mind, they're just a approximative models of reality.

Albert Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

fivedoughnut

21st January 2006 - 10:00 AM

QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 21 2006, 09:58 AM)

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 12:43 PM)

..as I feel the "make up" of the universe is a tad more simplistic...

Albert Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."

Yes brother!

Nick

21st January 2006 - 10:36 AM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 07:36 AM)

Perhaps we should discuss time from a photons perspective...i.e there is none!

Wrong. Photons experience relativistic gravitational time. They slow down because time slows down. As Einstein pointed out: time and light speed are linked in this way.

Zephir

21st January 2006 - 10:51 AM

QUOTE (Nick+Jan 21 2006, 01:36 PM)

Photons ... slow down because time slows down. As Einstein pointed out: time and light speed are linked in this way.

The understanding of things like the "slowening of time" or "slowening of light" strictly depends on the observer role or position.

From the point of view of "inner observer", which is created by the same environment as the light wave the situation can be described a quite differently as from the point of view of "outer observer", which has the independent time frame available, i.e. the time/distance measure, which doesn't depend on the light wave spreading.

It's evident, the current scientists are just at the "inner observer position", as we haven't such reference time frame available and therefore the light speed is invariant by its very definition. It's even the base of the SI physical units system.

Mixing of these two points of view can lead to the deep missunderstandings and neverending flame discussions without any progress. So please, be more specific, which point of view do you have on mind at now ? The light cannot slown down, if the time slowens down - and vice-versa.

Nick

21st January 2006 - 11:18 AM

QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 21 2006, 10:51 AM)

The understanding of things like the "slowening of time" or "slowening of light" strictly depends on the observer role or position.

Mixing of these two points of view can lead to the deep missunderstandings and neverending flame discussions without any progress. So please, be more specific, which point of view do you have on mind at now ? The light cannot slown down, if the time slowens down - and vice-versa.

I'll be more specific. You have to wait for light in gravity. Light moves at the same speed but this motion occurs in a slower time. The difference in time rate amounts to relativistic motion of light. Light slows where time slows.

fivedoughnut

21st January 2006 - 11:24 AM

QUOTE (Nick+Jan 21 2006, 10:36 AM)

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 07:36 AM)

Perhaps we should discuss time from a photons perspective...i.e there is none!

Wrong. Photons experience relativistic gravitational time. They slow down because time slows down. As Einstein pointed out: time and light speed are linked in this way.

Wrong?....

.....Start thinking and stop quoting!

amrit

21st January 2006 - 12:57 PM

Nick: The understanding of things like the "slowening of time" or "slowening of light" strictly depends on the observer role or position.

Amrit:
Light speed is constant for all inertial systems. In a fast inertial system the density of space increases, space shrinks and speed of time slows down. Observer does not play any role here. By the light movement there is no "time dilate". Time dilate happens by mass-particles, because by mass particle moving fast density of space increases and so space shrinks.

Mass of a particle depends on the density of cosmic space into it. More space is dense, higher is the mass. The formula that shows the relation between mass m and density of space D is:

D = m x G,

-D is a density of space
- m is a mass of the object
-G is gravitational constant

The formula E = m x cc shows the relationship between the increase in mass of the relativistic particle and its increase in kinetic energy.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia...s_increase.html

In this formula we can change m with D/G and we will get the formula:

E = (D x cc) / G

which shows clearly that the kinetic energy of particle depends on the density of space into it.

The mass of accelerated particle is increasing because the with the speed increasing the density around the particle is increasing.

Density of space is increasing also inside of the inertial system that moves with the higher speed regarding the inertial system that moves with the lower speed. This higher density of space causes the speed of clocks is slower into the faster inertial system.

Higher density of cosmic space inside of an fast inertial system is the bridge SR and GR. In SR the speed of inertial system causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space, in GR the mass causes the increasing of the density of cosmic space. “Inertial mass” and “gravitational mass” of a material object or particle are equal because the density of cosmic space in inertial mass and gravitational mass is equal.

Let’s say we are in a fast space ship that travels far away from the stars and planets in cosmic space with low density. With increasing of the speed of the space ship the density of cosmic space into it will increase. By attaining a certain speed the density of the space in the space ship will be equal to the density on the surface of the earth. Space ship travel than with this constant speed. We have two material bodies that are identical. Both of bodies will behave in exact the same way in the space ship and on the surface of the earth. The density D of space in both bodies is equal. This means the equality between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

amrit

Zephir: From the point of view of "inner observer", which is created by the same environment as the light wave the situation can be described a quite differently as from the point of view of "outer observer", which has the independent time frame available, i.e. the time/distance measure, which doesn't depend on the light wave spreading.

Amrit: observer that observes the stone falling on the flor and the observer that observes inside of the mind the furmula which describes the event is the same

zeus

22nd January 2006 - 07:04 PM

To tell you the truth not even the scientists really understand what is time. The human common sense does not allow this. Of course i do agree with the experiments, the observations and the results that come out of them. These results say that time is a fourth dimension attached with the three space dimensions. So a first result is that time moves along with these three dimensions through the universe. If not so we could say that there is not really time if we consider this. The point A is our planet and the point B is a Galaxy 2.000.000 ly away. Points A and B do exist. I just said it and it did not take 2.000.000 years to be confirmed based on the fact that light is the fastest speed in the universe.
Another conclusion is that the speed of light and time refer to matter and energy and not to the other unknown physical powers of the universe that don't have all these limitations because they are everywhere.

Zephir

22nd January 2006 - 07:34 PM

QUOTE (zeus+Jan 22 2006, 10:04 PM)

To tell you the truth not even the scientists really understand what is time.

I believe, time is the most fundamental quantity we know, a quite independent to the others, connected with the evolution paradigma.
The true nature of time remains hidden.

amrit

22nd January 2006 - 07:47 PM

Zephir:

I believe, time is the most fundamental quantity we know, a quite independent to the others, connected with the evolution paradigma.
The true nature of time remains hidden.

Amrit: you should say: time is the most fundamental quantity we do not know

I know what is time guys: time is movement

blindpanda

22nd January 2006 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Jan 22 2006, 07:47 PM)

I know what is time guys: time is movement

STOP SPAMMING THE FORUMS WITH THIS!! It has been proven wrong time and time again.

zeus

22nd January 2006 - 08:15 PM

Amrit: it is time still there in this 6D space running by itself ?

I didn't understand the question

amrit

22nd January 2006 - 11:04 PM

BLINDPANDA means that time runs also by itself where there is no movement into space

I think time is movement. So my question in 6dimensional space time run by itself ?

see more below about my ideas:

Time t which appears in physical laws describes the duration of movement of bodies and particles. On the ground of elementary perception, there is no evidence that material objects move in time. One can say is that material objects are subjected to changes and movements in cosmic space. It’s fundamental to understand that change (movement) does not run in time, change (movement) itself is time. All that exists in the universe is energy: energy of space, electromagnetic energy, elementary particles, atoms. Time is the movement of energy. The movement exists into cosmic space that is a “medium” in which movement happens. Only in this sense time (movement) is a part of cosmic space. Time can not run by itself into cosmic space, time is not an energy, time is a movement of energy.
According to the Max Planck definition in a Planck time a photon pass Planck distance. Time is a movement of a photon into Planck distance. The movement of photon into Planck distance is a "smallest" movement possible in the universe. Planck time t is a number that indicates the duration of the photon travelling in a Planck distance.

In Special Relativity (SR) the fourth dimension is a product of imaginary number i (i square is -1), speed of light c and time t that is the duration of light motion through the cosmic space from a object A to a object B: . In SR time is the movement of light in cosmic space, it is a consistent element of the fourth dimension X4. Common interpretation of space-time is that it has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. According to the understanding here, this interpretation is not exact. Also the fourth dimension X4 is spatial. In the formula time t means the duration of light movement from a point A to a point B in the cosmic space. With clocks we measure the duration of light travel from A to B.

Nick

22nd January 2006 - 11:15 PM

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 11:24 AM)

QUOTE (Nick+Jan 21 2006, 10:36 AM)

QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jan 21 2006, 07:36 AM)

Perhaps we should discuss time from a photons perspective...i.e there is none!

Wrong. Photons experience relativistic gravitational time. They slow down because time slows down. As Einstein pointed out: time and light speed are linked in this way.

Wrong?....

.....Start thinking and stop quoting!

Right.
You have to wait for light in gravity.

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.