What is "Time" made of?
- Thread starter razz
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps we need to look at the definition of 'spacetime'. Spacetime is a geometry that includes the three spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension of time. In Newtonian physics, space and time are considered as separate entities and whether or not events are simultaneous is a matter that is regarded as obvious to any competent observer. In Einstein's concept of the physical universe, based on a system of geometry devised by H. Minkowski, space and time are regarded as entwined, so that two observers in relative motion could disagree regarding the simultaneity of distant events. In Minkowski's geometry, an event is identified by a world point in a four-dimensional continuum.
Minkowski geometry unifies Euclidean three dimensional space plus time (the "fourth dimension") in Einstein's theory of special relativity.
Minkowski geometry unifies Euclidean three dimensional space plus time (the "fourth dimension") in Einstein's theory of special relativity.
If you are interested in learning about time, I recommend the following book:
In addition to giving an in-depth overview on all previous views on time (classical, Einstein's general relativity, etc) the author asserts his view, with evidence, that the universe is in actuality timeless.
In addition to giving an in-depth overview on all previous views on time (classical, Einstein's general relativity, etc) the author asserts his view, with evidence, that the universe is in actuality timeless.
What is *really* happening is
irrelevant, because we can never detect it, and it will never affect us in any
other way than what it does. --------------------------------------------------
There must be a way to detect what is really happening maybe not through the electromatic spectrum. We just have to find the right medium! maybe physiological energy hmmmm. Just because we can only detect light doesn't mean thats all there is
irrelevant, because we can never detect it, and it will never affect us in any
other way than what it does. --------------------------------------------------
There must be a way to detect what is really happening maybe not through the electromatic spectrum. We just have to find the right medium! maybe physiological energy hmmmm. Just because we can only detect light doesn't mean thats all there is
It all depends upon our percievances,we are modelled to look at this world in a 3D way,whereas this world could have limitless dimensions,that we off course are unable to comprehend,the idea comes from "flatland analogy"...
and each of these dimensions may be vibrating at different frequencies,hence the idea of a parallel universes crops up...
bye!
and each of these dimensions may be vibrating at different frequencies,hence the idea of a parallel universes crops up...
bye!
Well this topic has managed to extrude further than it's original intended route. Lets see what I can add, Which might mirror that of others, but similarity just adds to a more conclusive image.
Time is just a measurement, it doesn't have weight, it doesn't have resting mass. It's something we use to define other things like speed or distance, and without this measurement our lives would still be bound to something that involved "Timing".
When the discussion moves towards "Spacetime" it gets difficult to explain, but I shall try my best.
Firstly, understand that Space is Multidimensional, due to it being void of matter (Admittedly not Zero-point energy) it can allow numbers of dimensions that people can't percieve (well most people).
For an explaination of such dimensional "folding" the following is an attempt for an easy Spacetime translation.
*Take a metre long piece of string, and at one end you wiggle it, so that a wave carries right down the string.
The string has Three dimensions, it's width, Height and Length.
When you wave the string, at one given instance "Time" the string is located in once spacial positioning, and in the next instance it's located somewhere else.
It's possible to increase the dimensions that the string exists in, but this involves folding the string in two. The understanding then is that the first end that was being shook, continues being shook, and the other end is also shook, but at a different time.
This causes a 9 dimensional setup, and can be percieved as basis for "Relativity" (Of course the string can be folded many more times and it's ends and bends can be located anywhere within (spacetime).*
[I personally prefer one of Eschars Paintings for a Relativity diagram, one with stairs that lead in every direction on the floors, walls and ceiling of a room.]
I wish it could be explained more simply.
Spacetime was mentioned in one descriptive piece as light being measured not just as it travels to bounce off a wall, but during it's return so as to get an idea of an objects distance.
Time is just a measurement, it doesn't have weight, it doesn't have resting mass. It's something we use to define other things like speed or distance, and without this measurement our lives would still be bound to something that involved "Timing".
When the discussion moves towards "Spacetime" it gets difficult to explain, but I shall try my best.
Firstly, understand that Space is Multidimensional, due to it being void of matter (Admittedly not Zero-point energy) it can allow numbers of dimensions that people can't percieve (well most people).
For an explaination of such dimensional "folding" the following is an attempt for an easy Spacetime translation.
*Take a metre long piece of string, and at one end you wiggle it, so that a wave carries right down the string.
The string has Three dimensions, it's width, Height and Length.
When you wave the string, at one given instance "Time" the string is located in once spacial positioning, and in the next instance it's located somewhere else.
It's possible to increase the dimensions that the string exists in, but this involves folding the string in two. The understanding then is that the first end that was being shook, continues being shook, and the other end is also shook, but at a different time.
This causes a 9 dimensional setup, and can be percieved as basis for "Relativity" (Of course the string can be folded many more times and it's ends and bends can be located anywhere within (spacetime).*
[I personally prefer one of Eschars Paintings for a Relativity diagram, one with stairs that lead in every direction on the floors, walls and ceiling of a room.]
I wish it could be explained more simply.
Spacetime was mentioned in one descriptive piece as light being measured not just as it travels to bounce off a wall, but during it's return so as to get an idea of an objects distance.
J
Joeblow93132
Guest
Razz,
Time is just like any spatial dimension. The only difference is that you can't control the value, at least not yet. All other perceived differences are only the results of human perception.
Tom
Time is just like any spatial dimension. The only difference is that you can't control the value, at least not yet. All other perceived differences are only the results of human perception.
Tom
WHAT a terrible STUPID question!
science has never been able to tell WHAT something is
tell me, of what are subatomic particles made of???
what is an electron for example?
scientists define it as a 'probability', not as it is some kind of "stuff"
just think twice before asking something
A better question would be, What does time do and how can we define it, or even better, is there Time at all (Julian Barbour)?
personally I think Time does not exist
Motion is everything and time is what we make out of the uniform motion of clocks
in that sense, time does exist, but for mathematical purpose only, not as some dimension
when clocks go slower, this has nothing to do with the 'flow' of time, this is because a clock is just a device that can be influenced with kinetic energy, etc.
it is a physical effect
I've never understood how brilliant people like Einstein were able to be so idiot to believe that a clock really measures Time.
That dumb idea is the beginning and the end of his special relativity.
science has never been able to tell WHAT something is
tell me, of what are subatomic particles made of???
what is an electron for example?
scientists define it as a 'probability', not as it is some kind of "stuff"
just think twice before asking something
A better question would be, What does time do and how can we define it, or even better, is there Time at all (Julian Barbour)?
personally I think Time does not exist
Motion is everything and time is what we make out of the uniform motion of clocks
in that sense, time does exist, but for mathematical purpose only, not as some dimension
when clocks go slower, this has nothing to do with the 'flow' of time, this is because a clock is just a device that can be influenced with kinetic energy, etc.
it is a physical effect
I've never understood how brilliant people like Einstein were able to be so idiot to believe that a clock really measures Time.
That dumb idea is the beginning and the end of his special relativity.
chipsanddust
Registered Member
black hole time
Here's something that I have been thinking about for years and still can't quite get a grip on.
Years ago I read a book on black holes. In the book was a description of what would probably happen if you could find a black hole massive enough that you could get inside the event horizon without the tidal forces tearing you apart. I don't know if it is accurate or not but the author of this particular book indicated that once you passed the event horizon, time and space switched places. Whereas in normal space you can go any direction in space but only one direction in time. Inside the event horizon you can only go one direction in space, towards the singularity, but can go any direction in time.
How this applies to the current discussion I am not sure, except that to me it implies that time is just another kind of space that we don't normally have access to except for the one dimension/direction.
Here's something that I have been thinking about for years and still can't quite get a grip on.
Years ago I read a book on black holes. In the book was a description of what would probably happen if you could find a black hole massive enough that you could get inside the event horizon without the tidal forces tearing you apart. I don't know if it is accurate or not but the author of this particular book indicated that once you passed the event horizon, time and space switched places. Whereas in normal space you can go any direction in space but only one direction in time. Inside the event horizon you can only go one direction in space, towards the singularity, but can go any direction in time.
How this applies to the current discussion I am not sure, except that to me it implies that time is just another kind of space that we don't normally have access to except for the one dimension/direction.
chipsanddust,
What you may be referring to sounds a like a white hole or possibly what Kerr geometry describes as a 'ring singularity' and what is referred to as 'negative space.'
Have a look at these:
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/jebornak/html/rotating.html
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/jebornak/html/inside.html
What you may be referring to sounds a like a white hole or possibly what Kerr geometry describes as a 'ring singularity' and what is referred to as 'negative space.'
Have a look at these:
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/jebornak/html/rotating.html
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/jebornak/html/inside.html
chipsanddust
Registered Member
thanks
Flamethrower:
Thanks for the links. Very good stuff.
Flamethrower:
Thanks for the links. Very good stuff.
Well obviously time was invented by humans insofar as the definition of an "hour", a "year", a "minute"... Names and labels are given to anything by humans to describe the world around them. A tree existed before the first people named it so. "A rose by any other name..."
But we wouldn't have invented clocks if it wasn't to measure that thing we know as time. There is that sense of change, what people perceive as the "flow of time" that we all experience, this one-directional, seemingly constant and unstoppable experience that has been known as time since the ancients. It's the question of exactly what this time is that we and many other people are debating. (i.e. what causes time, and can this newfound insight into its nature allow us to exploit it in some way to benefit us?) Newton said it was just a framework - absolute time. Relativity says it's the fourth dimension. Whatever it is, I think we all know what we're talking about here.
This post was pretty self-explanatory but I wanted to write it anyway. Cheers.
But we wouldn't have invented clocks if it wasn't to measure that thing we know as time. There is that sense of change, what people perceive as the "flow of time" that we all experience, this one-directional, seemingly constant and unstoppable experience that has been known as time since the ancients. It's the question of exactly what this time is that we and many other people are debating. (i.e. what causes time, and can this newfound insight into its nature allow us to exploit it in some way to benefit us?) Newton said it was just a framework - absolute time. Relativity says it's the fourth dimension. Whatever it is, I think we all know what we're talking about here.
This post was pretty self-explanatory but I wanted to write it anyway.
Cheers.Is it possible the reason why physicists have not been able to devise an experiment that can measure, observer or detect the physical properties of time is because it is not as Relativity suggests a physical dimension? If we define time, only as a measure of the sequential ordering of casualty it would not have any physical properties because it is a measurement. Also as mentioned earlier in this discussion time has only been experiment observed to move only in one directionk, forward. However relativity predicts that time should be able to “move” in two directions forward backwards. The fact that there is no experimental observation what so ever to support the relativistic prediction that time moves backwards would seem to undermine its credibility. However if one defines time only as the sequential ordering of casualty it could not be reverse or move backwards because one could not reverse the causality of an event after it has occurred. This definition of time would be more in line with the experimental observed properties of non-reversibility of time because it defines time as being nonreversible. Please see <a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter16.htm> Chapter 16</a> for details. A
Jeff
Last edited:
- Status