The time Translated by Warren R Giordano Academia.edu : https://independent.academia.edu/GortholAdanedhel Time comes back in all areas: mathematics, physics, philosophy, in our everyday life etc ... But as soon as we try to define it, we arrive at problems. Is there time? The problem of time contrary to the coordinates of space-time is that it escapes all our senses. Now, the axioms of mathematics and the physical laws are totally defined from our senses. How to define time? The mathematicians solve their problem by simply stating in their algebraic equation the term T. Mathematicians thus state "time is the term T, a point is everything". When using this term, we note that the time T is a variable. According to them, time "flows" by itself, but the term T defines a certain dynamic, in the sense that the spatial terms vary only for the one that moves in space. There we come to a problem: Is time defined by itself? The time is defined by an axis, a line. Does the term T move in this axis? A question brought by the American physicist Lee Smolin will return quite often in our topic. Accorded to the problem of time is the way in which it is represented with the spatial coordinates: "When we graphically represent a movement in space, time is represented as if it were only another spatial dimension. The weather is frozen. [...] We should find a way of thawing time, of representing it without transforming it into space ". To do this, we would have to define what explains the "flow" of time, its motor. In particle physics, space-time is flat, rigid and static. In general relativity, it is curved, flexible and dynamic. We have two conceptions of time which are both different. Many theories (speculative or not) want to transform the notion of time (differentiable time, time into several dimensions, discontinuous time) or make it disappear and say that time does not exist, but only exists in our consciousness. The problem is always the same. How to define time without starting from the term time? This is where the term causality comes from. We will write that Event A eventually created an event B, and so on. If we can describe each event by a given moment (knowing that this moment is defined as being independent of the inertial velocity of any object), then we can assume that the present self-annihilates (at each given instant. Event B disappears to leave room for the following events) and time therefore does not exist and that the relativity of the arrow of time does not exist as well. We can say in this case that the existence of time rests not on its non-existence but on our experience. In this case, time is simply a memory of every moment of the present of our consciousness. Subjective time obviously has an asymmetrical structure. The past seems to us written, frozen. We can certainly remember it but we can no longer feel it pass. As for the future, however firm our will may be, it seems to us uncertain, without solid attachment to reality, a prior multiple. In everyday life, past and future are not equivalent. The principle of causality is preserved: if, for an observer, an event A is prior to an event B and such that a light signal has the time to start from A to reach B, then the same is true for any observer What other observer. Past and future retain an absolute character. Moving from one Galilean repository to another, one can change the rhythm of the course of time according to their relative speed, but one never inverts it. This would have to go beyond the speed of light, which precisely the theory of relativity forbids. Time would not exist in reality, but only in our subconscious. Thus, physical time (the time of clocks) is only the duration between two moments of time (this may be relative) defined by our consciousness. Moreover, our consciousness is "elastic". As Einstein said "To put your hand on a frying pan for a minute, it will seem to last an hour; Stay with the girl you love most for an hour and this will seem to last a minute. This is relativity. ". This is a relativity due to our consciousness, not to the speed of an object. In theoretical physics, however, it is said that an instant corresponds to Plank’s time. Before this, nothing can be described mathematically. If we come to say that the arrow of time is the sum of all the moments of time (or at least that the arrow of time includes all the moments of time), it would be clear then that the notions of subjective time is destroyed. If subjective time still existed, it would have to go beyond physical theory. What if there was a time before Plank’s time? Similarly, it is still impossible for us to assert that time is subjective because many equations in relativity prove by the postulate that nothing exceeds the speed of light that time exists. On the other hand, a theory in which the term time is not necessary is in quantum physics. If we set the arrow of time by a figure. Etienne Klein answers thus: "It would offer only two variants, the line or the circle, that is to say the linear time, which goes forward, or cyclic time, which makes loops. The latter, favored by the magical character of the circle, has prevailed in most myths but is today neglected by physics because it does not respect the principle of causality. This principle, indicating that a cause can only be prior to its effects, requires time to have an ordered structure so that it can always be said whether a point lies before or after another point. Events can then be ordered in an irremediable sequence, so that one can not retroactively modify a sequence of events that have already occurred. By blurring the notions of cause and effect, a cyclical time would not offer such guarantees. ". One could mix right and circle to solve this problem. The solution of this problem stems from my theory of time, which is meant to be a theory of the whole. For that we will take a half-right that we will bend and that will turn on itself of such sorts that it forms larger and larger circles (much like a snail shell). I will now imagine a point (a dog for example) starting to move on the curve. Now I will draw two axes, x and y, one horizontal, the other vertical, which will pass through the point of our half-line. And now our dog will "jump" and go to another end of the right. From this we can state several laws. The first is that the arrow of time is causal and not relative (the half-line corresponds to the arrow of time). The second is that the arrow of time is non-cyclic (an event does not repeat several times). And the last arrow of time is defined by the space (x and y axis). When is it then the "speed" of time? Etienne Klein replied: "Time does not accelerate. It is indifferent to our agitations: an hour lasts an hour, that we spend it to play ball or suffer a thousand deaths. The course of time in no way depends on our timetable, nor even on our perception of time: what flows in time is not the same thing as time itself. But, by an effect of contagion between container and content, we are inclined to attribute to time the characteristics of the processes which take place there. This is how speed is a sort of metaphysical doubling of time: when we say that time passes faster, we imagine something flowing at increasing speed. But that something is not time: it is the whole reality that "passes" and the time that makes it pass never ceases to be there to pass it. There is therefore, within the temporal flow itself, an active principle which remains and does not change, by which the present does not cease to succeed itself. Such immobility, acting in the very depths of time, astonishes us, for it contradicts the common idea that time would always be associated with flight. " I would like to end the conclusion with the words of Stephen Klein: "As we have just seen, each of the conceptual systems of physics gives time an original and peculiar status. There is obviously no universality of the concept of time, nor of the theoretical unity around it. As for the question of irreversibility, we have seen fragments of arrow (thermodynamic, cosmological, quantum), without being able to put a finger on the arrow-mother of all these darts, which would be worthwhile for the whole of physics. In any case, it seems that these two ways of thinking, that based on history and time, and that based on eternity and the absence of time, are two contradictory but inseparable components of our effort to Understanding the world. We can not explain the change without bringing it back to the permanent, and we do not know how to tell the duration without imagining that it coins some invariance. As for the links between the time of the world and that of the soul, they are to seek the sewing of matter and of life. The mathematized time of the physicist obviously does not exhaust the sense of time experienced, any more than time lived gives the intuition of all the facets of physical time. By dint of schematization, would physics have let some of the fundamental properties of time escape? This was Bergson's point of view, convinced that physics - and discursive intelligence in general - made a false representation of time. Rather than observing the time that passes, the scientific mind would be concerned to note coincidences; It would substitute for duration a simplistic schema, that of a single-dimensional time, homogeneous, consisting only of instants which succeed each other identically. In so doing, Bergson explained, he would forget to face the true nature of duration, which is continuous invention, perpetual learning, the uninterrupted emergence of novelty. The repetitive and lonely ticking of the monotonous time of physicists can not be the paste of true time, that of life."
The paste of time, eh? And "traduce"?? Suggest you get yourself a better translator: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traduce Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
C'est moi qui est mis la mention de la traduction. Parce que, en dehors de cette erreur, il y a beaucoup de fautes ? Je m'en excuse. Translated park is me which is put the mention of the translation. Because, except this error, there are many faults? I apologize for it.
There is insufficient discussion of the difference between time-as-a-coordinate and time-as-a-metrification-of-particle-world-line. One is about the math of space-time, the other is about the physics of particles. Both exist as topics in general relativity.
On the other hand, a theory in which the term time is not necessary is in quantum physics. Interesting
Not true. On of the great utilities of establishing a basis of stationary energy eigenstates of a particular quantum system is to able to express the dynamics (changing over time) of a general state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation#Equation
What I am only saying is that the description of a quantum state can be independent of time. http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node124.html
This is approximately what Einstein wrote, which I think is very succinct and pretty much describes it. When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number. It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events. In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after. There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time. It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they were undefined terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts. Note that an axiomatic system requires some undefined primitive terms to avoid various logical problems associated with circular definitions. It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.
Yes it is the ordering of events - the direction of causality - which is key. The idea of flow of time is a useful human perception but not part of the physics of it.
