The Relativity of Time

[paddoboy]

"To measure time, requires energy??. I disagree."

Challenge: Can you show me a way of measuring time without using any form of energy then?

Time doesn't need to be measured to exist......
The BB was an evolution of both space and time.

How about entropy , what has this got to do with time ?

Also I asked this ages ago , can you drain an atom completely of energy ?

If you can't , then the Universe recycles

Entropy is an arrow of time, always pointing towards the future, and will always increase in any isolated system.
See the second law of thermodynamics..

I'm not sure how draining any atom of all energy has anything to do with time...afterall, time was around before any matter.

And the conclusion you reach re recycling the Universe is puzzling to say the least.

 

[Nightshift]

Completely agree. Do you know, when I was on this forum several years ago, not many people at all would buy into the theory that time doesn't exist. Revisiting and looking through a few threads it appears that far more people are beginning to accept that time is a consequence and a measurement tool, just as length or distance is. I find this fairly promising. does anyone know whether JamesR has changed his mind yet?

It's still a measuring tool, a very handy one at that. But yes, time doesn't exist in my opinion and in the minds of quite a few scientists today.

 

[dav57]

Although we say we do "measure time", this may not be true.

A clock is a physical system which can be said to "output" regular information as motion (e.g. a simple pendulum). The periodicity of a clock is what we see as changes in direction (for a pendulum in motion), or changes in value (for say, a digital clock), and these are regular rather than random; devices which output random information don't make very good clocks.

So what are we measuring, and if measurement "uses up" time, then what's left over, type of thing?

When i said "Challenge: Can you show me a way of measuring time without using any form of energy then?", I don't actually believe that we measure 'time'. We are actually measuring the number of arbitrarily chosen oscillations of a physical thing in a given reference frame (even if it is pure energy) compared against another changing physical thing. We then interpret the measurement from data using arbitrarily chosen units, which transforms the data into usable information. So I was wrong with my words because we don't measure time; we measure physical change.

 

[Nightshift]

Time doesn't need to be measured to exist......
The BB was an evolution of both space and time.

Yes but not fundamental to the universes initial stage, however. You always keep forgetting to mention this. You after all, seem to appear to accept this now from a conversation with you the other day.

 

[origin]

No it wasn't. And I've told you this plenty times.

Nightshift has told him plenty of times????

 

[Nightshift]

When i said "Challenge: Can you show me a way of measuring time without using any form of energy then?", I don't actually believe that we measure 'time'. We are actually measuring the number of arbitrarily chosen oscillations of a physical thing in a given reference frame (even if it is pure energy) compared against another changing physical thing. We then interpret the measurement from data using arbitrarily chosen units, which transforms the data into usable information. So I was wrong with my words because we don't measure time; we measure physical change.

Yes we do.

 

[dav57]

It's still a measuring tool, a very handy one at that. But yes, time doesn't exist in my opinion and in the minds of quite a few scientists today.

Well I'll eat my bloody hat. After all that stick I took before as well! What changed in the last 5 or 6 years then?

 

[paddoboy]

Yes but not fundamental to the universes initial stage, however. You always keep forgetting to mention this. You after all, seem to appear to accept this now from a conversation with you the other day.

Not sure what conversation you are on about, but I have never changed my view re time, along with space [and any inherent energies] are fundamental to the Universe.
On that score you are wrong.

 

[Nightshift]

Well I'll eat my bloody hat. After all that stick I took before as well! What changed in the last 5 or 6 years then?

It's actually been known for over 50 years when de Witt quantized Einsteins field equations. We found that in relativity, time disappears. We also have some other brilliant reasons why time doesn't exist, some of them mathematical, others just by pure logical sense.

 

[Nightshift]

Not sure what conversation you are on about, but I have never changed my view re time, along with space [and any inherent energies] are fundamental to the Universe.
On that score you are wrong.

Not fundamental at the core of the initial stages. You say I am wrong, but you admitted the other day that yes... time and space emerged as the universe expanded, well... you seemed to recognize that space and time hadn't always been around. In fact, BB quite clearly states in it's very initial condition, it was a very hot dense point. Not a ball, not an oval... a point without dimensions. So you see... space and time may very well not be fundamental to the initial stages of the universe.

 

[dav57]

I think it's about time we stopped refering to space as 'space-time'. I also think we should ban the phrase time dilation. Because if time doesn't exist those references are invalid and confusing.

 

[paddoboy]

Not fundamental at the core of the initial stages. You say I am wrong, but you admitted the other day that yes... time and space emerged as the universe expanded, well... you seemed to recognize that space and time hadn't always been around. In fact, BB quite clearly states in it's very initial condition, it was a very hot dense point. Not a ball, not an oval... a point without dimensions. So you see... space and time may very well not be fundamental to the initial stages of the universe.

Nothing is fundamental to the singularity. It's nature is unknown, but really, that goes without saying.
From t=0 to t=10-43 seconds is that region containing the singularity, so I'm not really confident we can confidently say it was a point.
A future QGT may very well reveal some surface below that region, we don't know.
But personally I speculate that space and time still existed, albeit in an unknown form....note "speculate"

 

[paddoboy]

I think it's about time we stopped refering to space as 'space-time'. I also think we should ban the phrase time dilation. Because if time doesn't exist those references are invalid and confusing.

It's only your opinion time doesn't exist.
Plenty reputable scientists [Sean Carroll, Max tegmark, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Brian Cox, Neil De-Grasse Tyson] believe that it does.

 

[Nightshift]

It's only your opinion time doesn't exist.
Plenty reputable scientists [Sean Carroll, Max tegmark, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Brian Cox, Neil De-Grasse Tyson] believe that it does.

Brian Cox lol


Sean Carroll may very well do. Max Tegmark may very well do. Michio Kaku... may very well do.

There are also plenty that don't. Just as reputable actually.

 

[Nightshift]

Nothing is fundamental to the singularity. It's nature is unknown...

Complete and utter oxymoron. How can you say it is unknown and then proclaim that nothing is fundamental to the beginning of the universe?

And by the way, there are non-singular theorems so we might not be dealing with a singularity.

 

[Nightshift]

I'd say energy appears to be fundamental. Though we can remove energy as well from the metric. If nothing is fundamental then there you have it, everything is emergent from nothing.

 

[paddoboy]

Complete and utter oxymoron. How can you say it is unknown and then proclaim that nothing is fundamental to the beginning of the universe?
.

Good point!!!

let me rephrase.....We don't know of anything with confidence that is fundamental to the singularity.

And by the way, there are non-singular theorems so we might not be dealing with a singularity..

What do you think I said in the following.....

A future QGT may very well reveal some surface below that region, we don't know.

There are also plenty that don't. Just as reputable actually.

I have also agreed with that point in saying that at best, I see it as a debatable subject....

 

[paddoboy]

No it wasn't. And I've told you this plenty times. In the first instant, there was no space or time, no geometry.

And I have mentioned countless times, that the BB in the first Instant [meaning the most fundamental first entities evolved] was the evolution of space and time, as we know them....which just so happens to be 10-43 seconds after the initial event.
Not, as you seem to have implied, the first instant of time.
You must know that surely.
Whatever existed in that first instant of time, is unknown.

In geometrogenesis, geometry is recognized after the Planck Epoch, that nice little time you keep quoting, but it also had to undergo a unified electrostrong phase before it finally got into electroweak symmetry breaking, allowing mass and by definition the geometry. It makes space, time (geometry) and matter emergent. It also would imply time is emergent.

In simple language, the Superforce started to decouple [as temperatures and pressures dropped] and our first fundamentals [probably electrons and quarks] were created during those phase transitions...Gravity being the first to decouple.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

I think it's about time we stopped refering to space as 'space-time'. I also think we should ban the phrase time dilation. Because if time doesn't exist those references are invalid and confusing.

Grok'd!

Definitions for "spacetime"(all Bold and Color by dmoe!) :

Why Spacetime?

So far all our discussion in special relativity has involved the motion of bodies in space over time. If you haven't already noticed, these motions can become rather complicated to visualize. Recall how tough it is to keep track of what the different ends of a moving rod are doing as a light signal bounces back and forth between them.

In 1907 the mathematician Hermann Minkowski explored a way of visualizing these processes that proved to be especially well suited to disentangling relativistic effects. This was their representation in spacetime. Quite puzzling relativistic effects could be comprehended with ease within the spacetime representation and work in the theory of relativity started to be transformed into work on the geometry of spacetime.

-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/index.html

In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the 'fourth dimension'. By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels.

-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Spacetime is a model in physics that joins the three dimensional space and one dimensional time into the idea of space-time continuum. Combining these two ideas helped physicists to make many laws of physics easier to understand, and to explain how the universe works on the big level (e.g., stars) and small level (e.g., atoms).

The actual number of dimensions in spacetime is not fixed, but usually spacetime means a four dimensional (three dimensions of space and one dimension of time) spacetime. Some other theories claim that there are more than four dimensions.

-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

If you are looking for a few paragraph answer to the question "What is Space-Time?" Dr. Sten Odenwald offers one in The Astronomy Cafe:

"In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

'The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.'

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not."

This is the relatively simple, widely accepted, description of SpaceTime. Our links will give you a solid understanding of the SpaceTime theories that most scientists believe are correct. But this definition of SpaceTime only scratches the surface of the incredibly fascinating Alice in Wonderland like world of Physics.

If you want to dig deeper and step through the looking glass you will find that a comprehensive understanding of "Why the universe appears to have one time and three space dimensions?" remains one of the great scientific mysteries of the universe. An article by physicist George Musser in the June 2010 Scientific American Magazine ["Twistor Theory Reignites the Latest Superstring Revolution"], reminded us that: "In the late 1960s the renowned University of Oxford physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose came up with a radically new way to develop a unified theory of physics. Instead of seeking to explain how particles move and interact within space and time, he proposed that space and time themselves are secondary constructs that emerge out of a deeper level of reality. ..." Andrew Hodges of Oxford says that "This idea of points of spacetime as being primary objects is artificial."

Alternate theories where space and time are minor players in our physical reality are still very tentative and so mathematically dense that even those physicists directly involved in developing them admit they can barely follow what is going on. Theorists have yet to explain why, if spacetime is merely a construct, it nonetheless seems so real to us. We include links to articles that suggest what SpaceTime, Relativity, and Quantum Physics may look like in the future. (The Future of Fundamental Physics is a great article that explains some of the problems with current theories. You may want to read it after using the links to get a basic understanding of SpaceTime)

-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

Is it just me, or do all of the ^^above quotes^^ indicate that "spacetime" is : a theoretical construct : or, a theoretical model : or, a theoretical representation ?
So, "spacetime" is a theory!

Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.

Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.


Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.

- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Hopefully, ^^the information presented above^^ will be of use to some Members of this Forum! If it is completely read and if it is completely understood.

 

[Nightshift]

Grok'd!

Definitions for "spacetime"(all Bold and Color by dmoe!) :

-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/index.html


-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime


-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

Is it just me, or do all of the ^^above quotes^^ indicate that "spacetime" is : a theoretical construct : or, a theoretical model : or, a theoretical representation ?
So, "spacetime" is a theory!



- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Hopefully, ^^the information presented above^^ will be of use to some Members of this Forum! If it is completely read and if it is completely understood.

You didn't bold the best part:



Roger Penrose came up with a radically new way to develop a unified theory of physics. Instead of seeking to explain how particles move and interact within space and time, he proposed that space and time themselves are secondary constructs that emerge out of a deeper level of reality. ..." Andrew Hodges of Oxford says that "This idea of points of spacetime as being primary objects is artificial."