# What really is a continuous symmetry?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by arfa brane, Oct 27, 2020.

1. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,761
Right, light propagates as a constant value of speed in a vacuum. We can measure it and translate it into human symbolic language, the actual symbolic numbers are arbitrary values assigned by humans for convenience and accuracy.

But time is not a constant, nor is it a thing, it is an abstract variable and completely dependent on the relative values of continued existence and duration of change of physical objects or change.

In the absence of chronological existence or change there is no time at all. Universal Time started at the BB.

Hence, Time is a scalar value, which can only move in a single direction (forward).
https://www.quora.com/Is-time-a-scalar-or-a-vector?top_ans=89866170#

Time is an abstract dimensionless mathematical object, which becomes expressed and quantified as a result of continuous chronological duration of physical existence and/or change.

Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#

Time does not exist as an independent plenum, but always as an emergent result (quantity) during chronological change. To me this scenario does not contradict any function of time, but does meet Occam's razor as a minimum requirement to satisfy the law of: Necessity and Sufficiency.

IMO, spacetime = 3 necessary physical spatial dimensions + 1 sufficient abstract dimensionless temporal permission.

Last edited: Oct 31, 2020

3. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
Yes it is a thing. It flows at a constant rate. It seems that observers in relative motion have their own rate of flow for time.

It also seems to be the case that, measuring intervals of time means time has to vanish, and be replaced by a physical displacement.
Since time is never really anything that can be measured, it doesn't exist in that sense. But is that the only test? Why is that the case?

5. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
So because light propagates at a constant rate (true across the universe) in a given medium or in the vacuum, we recognise that setting units so that light moves one unit of distance in one unit of time, then all light information must be in the line halfway between the time and distance axes.

This illustrates a symmetry; it's what Minkowski space looks like in one space and one time dimension. Time "looks like", or is affine to, space, and the units are equivalent when the speed of light is 1 (unit of distance per unit of time).

So the relation we see there, is the affine relation between time and distance (resp, between time and the angles of hands on a clock face).

7. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,019
My position TIME does not exist your question is moot

Seems like you are pulling a River, sow confusion and pretend you don't understand

Only IF you want to time any event would you need to construct your own units of time (note - not measuring units of time)

8. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,019
WHAT flows?

Still waiting waiting for the list

Must be a long list taking you so long to compile

9. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
Because you haven't considered even the first item on that list: time is continuous.
But wait, there's more. A 1-manifold can only have motion in one direction, or in the opposite direction and these motions are mutually exclusive for a distinct 'moving' point. If that manifold is continuous, then changing direction is a discontinuity in an otherwise continuous function of time, i.e. the motion in consideration, not the manifold which 'sees' no discontinuity.

10. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,761
Where does time flow?
In relation to what?
I disagree, time does not occupy physical space. Physical displacement happens within the 3 spatial dimensions. A fixed measurement of time may be replaced by the term "age" (Michael), when physical change is still in a state of continuation and a discreet value is required for measurement purposes.
I agree!
Because that is the only required test. Time is a meaningless concept in and of itself. It can only be measured in relation to and as a result of the chronological existence of physical expressions.

Emergent Time requires a "beginning" and an "end". It measures the temporal state of affairs, but does not occupy physical space except as a simultaneous emergent "accounting" of duration.

IMO, there is only spacetime because time began (emerged) with the beginning of the universe and is the reason why we can measure the age of the Universe. The flow of time is only in relation to the flow of spatial coordinates in a fluid medium. AFAIK, time does not flow in and of itself.

In a dynamical Universe, the time is a necessary commodity for a continuous chronology. In a permittive condition sufficient time is granted to accommodate the change in spatial coordinates.

Using the concept of the probability wave function, perhaps this explains my perspective;
Ulrich Mutze , 25th Nov, 2013
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_wave_function_in_Quantum_mechanics_have_a_unit#

Apply this analysis to the question of time as a dimensionless temporal result of dynamical change.
IMO, that translates into; "the emergence of time depends on its affinity to the existence of space".

I stipulate my limited formal knowledge, and propose my POV from some very basic logical premises gleaned from "mainstream science". But I'm here to learn, if someone can offer a more persuasive argument why time must exist as an independent plenum, I'll listen.

AFAIK, spatial dimensions exist, Time is the temporal accounting of the chronological existence of spatial dimensions, emerging as "duration" of physically permitted change.

Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
11. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,019
What is to consider?

You have not produced a list

You did say
As for two properties being listed in the above I did post about one (continuous - which I don't think is a property anyway) and requested you elaborate on the second one. You couldn't even do that

All I see in your post is blah blah blah River blah blah blah more River blah blah blah which equals I don't have, know of any, properties of time but if I blah blah blah enough you will get feed up and forget about

You have Riversised yourself out of the thread as far as I am concerned. I leave you to play in the sand pit alone unless Write4U joins in to your blah blah blah ramblings

12. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
Because you're an idiot.

13. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 71 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
10,019
Excellent repartee

14. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
Chronological existence doesn't sound possible unless you have time. So how is time a meaningless concept, whereas you seem to be saying chronological existence is meaningful. Except that can't be right; even the word 'existence' means there is time for the existence?

15. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,761
I disagree with the need for time prior to the start of an existence. In a permittive environment without physical change, time is not necessary, until the start of a chronology.

The time that is required for any chronology (measurable duration) is created during the evolution of the chronology.

Think of a Taxi waiting for a fare with its timer off. When a passenger enters the taxi and gives the driver an address, the driver starts the "measurement of duration" by turning on the timer, until they reach the destination. In this scenario it is the driver who grants the time and after the measurement of that duration from start to destination, the driver is able to convert the measured time into a billable amount of cash. Time-clocks at work create billable chronologies of time. At the end of the work day, the time for work stops and time for leisure begins.
To my knowledge, there is no law that prohibits a timeless permittive condition.

I believe the currently accepted hypothesis is that when there was nothing, that also included the absence of time, but there must have been an a priori permittive condition that allowed the BB to occur. Spacetime began during the BB and the formation of this universe.

But IMO, it is perfectly logical to propose that before the BB there was a timeless condition which had no properties other than being permittive of something. i.e. the BB and everything that followed in chronological order. The evidence for that is very strong...

The universe itself started as a singularity and the inflationary epoch expanded all measurable space. But there was no prior space for space to expand into, just as there was no prior time. There was only a permittive condition which allowed for both space and its attendant time to evolve in a chronological order, along with evolution of the near infinite number of individual timelines of every measurable physical chronology, from the formation of fundamental elements to the formation of galaxies and star systems and the creation of every physical object that ever existed.

Each possessing it's own time line as related to all other objects with their own time frame.

Ask, where does time go when there is no longer a measurable chronology of something. Is Time stored somewhere?
IMO, when there is no measurable change or duration is associated with a prior chronology, time simply ceases to exist for that now defunct prior chronology .

Without a continuous chronology, there simply is no measurable time, but there is a timeless permittive condition that allows for the start of a dynamical chronology and its associated measurement. Witness the BB.

In formed spacetime (this universe) this inherent permission for dynamical change becomes dependent on the mathematics of the spacetime configuration.

Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
16. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
Well, who hasn't been there?

Unfortunately "prior to" clinches it, along with "the start of". You can't have it both ways and claim time isn't needed in a sentence that clearly uses it.
Then if this next is supposed to clarify your argument, well, I for one am left feeling less than satisfied:
.

17. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
Ok, you're saying time flows one way in this universe because whatever also created volume (or three spatial dimensions), "permitted" this?
Well that depends what you think it is, or what storing is.

I suppose you can say that the universe stores time by keeping the speed of light the same everywhere. It stores the way time 'flows' by keeping this rate the same, despite how any clock might be moving relative to observers who aren't in its local frame. The way the universe stores time makes it linear everywhere

18. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,761
No, that is not my claim at all. You used it in your proposition that "Chronological existence doesn't sound possible unless you have time". (i.e. available time for a ~13.75 year chronology)
At which time time is created in perfect simultaneity with every instant of the continuous physical chronology.
Why?

Do you agree with mainstream science, that the Universe came from Nothing ? Where is that different from what I posted?

Actually, I provided a perfectly suitable and logical description of a state of Timeless Nothingness that might yet be permittive of the Emergence of this physical Universe, along with the creation of its associated chronological timeline, combining to form spacetime and its subsequent chronological evolutionary spacetime history (the accounting).

Last edited: Nov 1, 2020
19. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,761
First, it isn't my claim that time flows one way in this universe. Science does and that time is a dimensionless scalar.
I agree with that.
The Universal continuum consists of scalar spacetime. But time itself is a variable commodity, and is part of Relativity.
And there is not a single minute of time outside or inside the confines of this universal spacetime continuum that is not associated with some existent physical chronology . Time has no existence of its own, it is always a temporal measurement associated with a form of duration

So is there a universal time that we could all agree on?

The universe’s timeline. Design Alex Mittelmann, Coldcreation/wikimedia, CC BY-SA

W4U;(note; the dark area surrounding the expanding universe is not space, nor time. But it is a permittive condition that allows for the continual expansion of the spacetime)
Time’s arrow
Here my answer is perfectly suited. You cannot go backward in time because a dedicated timeline is created at the beginning of all chronologies and you cannot go back past the beginning of any chronology.

Hence out inability to look back in time past the "beginning" when time was created along with the universe.
https://theconversation.com/what-is-time-and-why-does-it-move-forward-55065

It always moves forward because it is a result and always emerges chronologically as a measurable mathematical chronologically "value added" accounting of duration of existence and change.

20. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
15,761
Not exactly. Time must flow forward as a measurable function of duration of change.
No one knows what or how the universe was created, except for a self evident fact that there must have been a beginning. Logically for any object to have a beginning and continue to exist it must be mathematically permitted by the universal laws of physics. The same principle holds for the entire universe. a timeless mathematically permittive condition must have existed prior to the BB and the emergent inflation of the universal spacetime.
But that's backwards. Time does not keep the speed of light constant. The speed of light keeps the emergence of duration associated time at a constant rate.
Yes always, but it does not prevent time from going backward.
Only if time is a result (an emergent accounting of duration) of change, is the additive chronology of the flow of time being forced forward, even if the spatial movement of the physical change is backwards. The resulting associated measurable time must chronologically always go forward, regardless of all environmental mathematical conditions and dynamics. It's the only direction the permittive condition permits the duration of change or existence to progress.

It is like the odometer in a car. It always adds to the total number of miles regardless of the direction the car is moving. It counts miles "travelled", i.e. the simultaneous forward resulting chronology of the measurable duration is part of the "function of time" equation. The results are always additive. In this case all emergent time of duration of a chronology must follow the forward chronology of the change in an orderly mathematical process.

Even if you travel back in time, your own associated timeline is always counting forward, regardless of any relative external conditions.

The past is a series of closed chronologies. Time for those chronologies does no longer exist, they are closed sets of timelines. The history of the timeline as part of the function of ;
input --> function/duration -- > output. (observed or not) was available to measurement.

I find David Bohm's experiment in "Laminar Flow" very interesting in context of going back in space without going back in time.

note; If the guy had a stop watch he could have recorded he accumulated time going both ways.

21. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
Does a temporal measurement have an existence? What about a form of duration? If yes to both, then time must exist.

This idea that time doesn't exist until you start measuring it runs straight into a problem: how do you know when to start? If time doesn't exist unless its being measured, how do you know if it is being measured or what will happen when you stop? How do you know when to stop, or start?

22. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
??
Because time changes at a constant rate, light travels at a constant rate. The two are equivalent statements about our universe or about some invariant properties.
So the constant rate of change in time everywhere light can go, 'keeps' the speed of light constant when it goes anywhere. Ok?

23. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,137
I'm going to go with the apparent motion of a distinct point in a 1-manifold, as being like the range, or image of a function in a larger domain. The function is generally a function of motion and the image is a moving point.

To have uniform, straight-line motion, any motion in the larger space must be able to refer to a point where the function's image is 0, or where t = 0. This fixes the point so that negative t is in the past, and all positive t in the future. The symmetry "emerges" when a point is fixed. But time doesn't stay fixed at a point (have you noticed?), so this is a theoretical kind of time, not the real deal.

Mathematical consideration of the number 0, indicates it can lie neither in the past, nor the future, only where these intersect. Philosophically, there is never any "moment", or now; no "zero time". No point moving along a 1-manifold.

So maybe I'll call that the nth principle of measurement (which necessarily entails a point where "the time" = 0), for n = 1,2, . . .
Or in the lab, it has to be true that you can choose the beginning of an interval of time, before the interval exists.

Does it follow that you can choose the end of an interval of time, once you choose a beginning?