Eise

I do. And gave an argument: there is no force, no field, no potential, nothing physical, i.e. no physical cause (no 'mechanism', as Swansont formulated it) for the Lorentz transformations. Lorentz Transformation and Relativity Theory. I think that I know what you mean. You say it is impossible to define change without using the concept of time. That maybe true. But since when can we conclude from a concept at the real existence independent of the concept? For something to exist physically, in my opinion, means that it causes something else. Time doesn't cause anything. You seem to postulate a kind of 'sea of time' in which everything exists. But on the other side everything has its own time, depending on the observer seeing it. Well, if you think that events occurring in time have the same physical status as time, be my guest. Yes, I can tell that time passes: here, have my clock. Look at it, and see where the pointer is when the muon decays. I'll give you my mirror too. All change requires time, yes, as a concept, as an abstraction. You did call time an abstraction. Of what? That puts me in a paradox...

Nearly, yes. The only problem is that time is not physical. Therefore there is no physical cause for the LT. The LT follow logically from the 2 postulates of the RT. No forces, no fields, potential, nothing. Neither. For you time passes normally. Your reading is in bad faith, you should know that. Of course I am observing the black hole from a big and safe distance. For me processes near the black hole are going slower. I know that, so ask me different: what is the relevance pro or contra my viewpoint? I think nothing of what I said changes anything in the LT. It only gives a different viewpoint on the concept of time: that it is a tool to describe processes. Let's try it in another way. Classical physics believed that there was a kind of universal time and space. You only had to define the origin of your coordinate system, but lengths and durations were universal. RT did away with that. But instead of that, you define now that every inertial system has its own time and length. But again, isn't that an unnecessary metaphysical assumption? Why not stick to what we can observe: that lengths seem shorter, and durations longer. Why is it called length contraction, and not space contraction (OK, I know, it is only one dimension.) But shouldn't we say that we have 'duration dilatation' instead of 'time dilatation'? We see how clocks go slower, how all processes go slower. But we do not see time going slower. I don't know if this parallel helps: if we change the clocks at the start of daylight saving time, what do we in fact do? Change the time? Or are we doing everything one hour earlier? Is the 'same time still flowing' as before? But I agree that the point is not very important, but if somebody asks 'what is time?', then my answer would be still this: it is an abstraction of change. It is definitely not the other way round.

I know: So what is the point?

I mean that apart from change we have no sources to know that time exists. I think that then we can strike time from our metaphysical vocabulary. What is the metaphysical difference between saying that 'time slows down near a black hole' and 'changes go slower near a black hole'? If you observe the surroundings of a black hole, what do you observe: slow time, or slow changes? It has to do with the extreme generality of 'change'.

Not yet. Now I am. BUT: the point stays that there is some other access to e.g. the Higgs field. Was that not all the importance about finding the Higgs boson? Assuming that the Higgs particle would not have been found in any of the possible energy ranges, would that not have counted as falsification of the Higgs mechanism? No, no, I know. It was just a suggestion to make the difference between time and the Higgs field. There is no other access to time then through change. This rightly suggests that time is just an abstraction of that what really physically exists: change. And of course it is a very useful abstraction. We all use it daily, not just physicists.

I said that Paul tells about an event in his life that happened about 5 years after Jesus' execution. And I provided the basis for that assumption. Yes, we already got that. Galatians is one that is authentic. I am not doing that. I give the other criteria independent percentages, and as you see, the end result is, as expected, less than the 95%. So what is your assumption that we have several sources, 2 Christian (Mark/Matthew, Galatians) and one none-Christian (Josephus). Why would both Mark, Matthew and Paul mention this, when it would not be true? Don't you think that any other hypothesis is way less probable? No. It fits perfectly in the agenda of the preacher, so zero points. It is just not true. But you like to believe it.

Well, I am not pedantic enough to suggest that I understand the Higgs mechanism. But only one thing: the Higgs particle is discovered, isn't it? That is independent access to the Higgs field, no? Do you expect we will find the 'chronon' one day, the elementary quantum of time?

Yes. But my point is that the measurement is never more than comparing it with another change. Yep, I assume it was clear that I did not mean that. Yes. Therefore I think we nearly agree. I just wanted to stress that time is not an empirically given fact. Change is. The difference is that I always find a cause of the electric field: a charge, or an electromagnetic wave. There are different modes of access to these phenomena. In the case of time I am standing 'for a wall of change'. Sorry for becoming poetic... But I never find a cause of change, except another change. In relativity, time does not cause processes to slow down: changes just are going slower. I notice this misunderstanding when trying to explain SR to absolute beginners. They think I will reveal some cause why 'time slows down'. They are disappointed when it turns out that the explanation is just a logical consequence of the relativity principle and the constancy of speed of light. They think I tricked them. The abstraction 'time' does not exist in the same way as physical objects exist. And I would not exactly say that it makes physics work; it makes physics easy. (OK, comparatively easy...). But I know what you mean, and more or less agree.

I do not exactly know where you got your numbers, but just look at the sources: Paul mentions he met "James, the Lord’s brother". Josephus mentions 'so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James'. Mark 6:3 (and literally the same in Matthew 13:55): Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? I see no reason why the relationship ' .. is brother of ..' would not be symmetrical.

But measurement of time always is comparing it to some standard of time! That means: compare it with something that changes. What do you want to say with 'well-tested'? I am not questioning RT. I am only questioning if time exists as an independent entity. And as said, Einstein uses clocks, and 'light explosions' (events) to build his SRT (at least in the beginning). You seem to think that every inertial frame drags his own time with it. What I can say of an inertial frame is that if I would have a clock in it, and I am in another inertial frame that moves against the other, that the clock would seem to go slower than exactly the same clock in my inertial frame. Same with another clock, put in the same inertial frame as the first clock. That is the meaning of 'the same time everywhere in one inertial frame'. And don't forget, an inertial frame is an abstraction too... Edit: it of course means that an other, identical clock in my own inertial frame changes just as fast as mine. And again you are using the phrase 'time proceeding'. Things change in time, or said differently, processes occur in time. Proceeding can only be defined by using the concept of time. That's not far from asking what is the speed of time in my own inertial frame. (My answer: it is 1, a dimensionless constant... It turns out it is exactly the same as the volume of space, which is also the same dimensionless 1.)

Aha, maybe I see the misunderstanding. I am not saying that time is turned on and off depending on if there is change or not. I am saying (nearly your words!) that time is an abstraction of change. As it is with abstractions, they have no self-existence. They are certain aspects that have certain objects in common. Now change is everywhere in the universe. It is simply one of the broadest aspects that everything has in common. And even if I am observing a system that does not change during my observation, my observation in itself is a process (maybe accompanied with my standardised change-device to see how much it changed during my observing the not changing system). As for gravity: it is always connected with mass (or energy if you want). So my tests for gravity will not always be positive. But everywhere I want to measure a duration, there is change: I need a clock of some kind. Some people say that the time is the necessary condition for change: without time, change would be impossible. But this is of course an untestable theory. I cannot turn time off, and look if there is still change. Time is not the cause of change. Time is only given to us through change. Time is not accessible for us, except through change. So why should I say that this abstraction of time exists? Why is change not enough? As an empirical science, physics cannot tell us if time exists. Physics can only tell us if something exists if it causes something. But as said, time does not cause change. Changes are caused by other changes. And physics describes how changes happen, depending on the kind of objects involved and the initial conditions.

It is not prejudiced. You showed again and that scientific arguments do not bother you. So I call you a believer. I hoped at least to help you a little with language, but that seems to be in vain too. (Of course, I am not a native speaker, so I am pretty sure I make a lot of errors too. 'Criterion - criteria' is just one of my favourite errors. Especially when I once read that somebody said there were 4 criterias...)

Would you mind to read the thread from the point on where I chimed in? Otherwise I have to repeat everything. From a single muon itself you will never be able to conclude that time has passed. Only when compared to a standard-changer device. Just for the ease, say a muon has a halftime of 1 μs. I give a muon to you, and after 1ns it decays. Can you now tell that the muon must have lived already a while, because it decayed so fast? Say I repeat this a thousand times. I give you a muon and you measure the decay times. Do you think you can conclude that all my muons are 'older' because you find a shorter halftime? Sorry, but that is not what I meant. I don't think I am right because of the many reactions. I was saying that people seem to care, as elfmotat says, about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Read better, in context.

I don't think I missed it. I already said before that time in QM is as difficult to understand as is location. I also implied some postings before that taking a single radioactive nucleus is not a good device for e.g. confirming the twin paradox. You should take at least a huge amount of them. The change is in the number of muons, that decreases slower when flying close to the speed of light. More I have never said or implied. Maybe I was not so precise, but I thought that wasn't needed here. Maybe I am wrong?

So it seems that yo have an answer to the question: for you there is at least one angel is dancing on the pin of the head. I don't bother. But somebody asked and I gave my answer. And as you see this provoked some strong reactions. Isn't that funny? And just for the record: I do not belong to the 'new age' category of people who say that time is an illusion. Even if I would say something like that, but would immediately followup with "but change isn't", I would be spit out as a shallow materialist. (which I am not. I am a deep materialist... ) And, btw, there was some famous physicist, who sent the widow of his beloved friend Besso, as comfort, that time is an illusion. No, no, that is not fair. It should be about space then. Length can be easily defined by comparing it with standard lengths, as duration can be defined by comparing it with standard durations, like clocks.

Which is not the same as saying time doesn't exist if there is no change. But it is also not the same as saying time exists. Everytime you would like to prove that time exists you must refer to change. 'Time' is just a superfluous metaphysical category. Oh, come on Swansont, you can do better. I gave the example with the radioactive substance already. Halftime of the moving muons is longer. That means they change slower than the muons that are more or less stationary in my laboratory. And what is 'using time' else than comparing it to a 'standard-changer' (aka a clock). Everytime one makes the concept of time operational, you must refer to some other process. No idea. But how do you think you can answer the question without referring to something that changes?

Ten oz, you are mixing up the criteria. Criterion 1 is about how close to contemporary a testimony is, nothing more. Also, you are mixing up the time of the witnessing, and the writing down of it. If I now tell you that I saw the meteor of Neuschwanstein, then am I a contemporary witness or not, even that the event happened 12 years ago? So, here are the facts: This is the citation of Paul in Galatians 2: Paul refers to his conversion (3 years after). Cephas is the Aramaic name for Peter (the apostle). The experts agree that Galatians is one of the authentic sources (look it up in the link you provided). About the time frame: Ehrman, Did Jesus exist? Also, don't forget that Paul did not met just some bystanders that have seen Jesus preaching. He met one of the apostles and Jesus' brother. I did a service to you not to give 100% for this point. But it is true: it is not exactly contemporary, so not the full 100. Sorry, Robittybob1, you are a believer. Whatever argument I give, how good it is, you will still believe. The only real help I can offer to you is this: It is: one criterion more criteria

Right. It doesn't even say that time is. Time is just a useful abstraction for change. Compare this with e.g temperature: we can analyze temperature in terms of kinetic energy. But there is no independent way of observing time than observing change. No, because the systems are not identical anymore. Remember that that was the point where I started? With identical systems, that started with the same initial conditions. When after a while they did not develop the same, then they were not identical (lower ambient temperature) or I can conclude that both reactions did not start at the same time. Your clock will say yes... No! The muons decay, i.e. change, slower, that is what I observe. And so I say time has slowed down, but there is no time apart from the change. See my example of the decaying radium yesterday.

It's a criterion. As I said, give me the references to Jewish documents. I don't have any. There are nearly no references to Jesus in religious Jewish sources, except of course negative. No mentioning of an awakening from the dead. And you did not meet a person who raised people from the dead: you met somebody who said so. You have no absolute evidence of people that were really dead (4 days and rotting) and then got alive again. John 11:

Physics says nothing about it. Everytime when we do the experiments, we have to look at change, be it a clock or a twin that is much younger than his brother. You cannot say that 'Time in any inertial frame is the same at all points' without giving it an operational definition, with clocks and distances. In 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' Einstein is explicitly using clocks and rods. I think it was because he saw that the concepts of time and space taken on its own are empty, and you have to use operational definitions. Saying that time is slower in another inertial system is in fact saying that changes there are slower. You make the same mistake as StringJunky: time doesn't proceed. Changes proceed. So changes are occurring in the way that the laws of physics describe. Can you describe me how you can test that time exists without change? Is that idea testable?

There is no way of knowing that. 'Time occurring': don't you see the difficulty in this phrase? Something occurring means that something is changing. Is time occurring then? (Does time have speed? ) I already gave the example of the 'relativistic twin experiment'. How do I know that less time has passed for the traveling brother? Because there was less change. Is there a way to know that less time passed without noticing the amount of change? So is there a way to know if exists independent of change?

Seems you want it the hard way too... Suppose we have a closed system in which there is no change. Does time pass in the system? How can we know without entering the system, i.e. introducing time ourselves? And which was supposed to be a closed system? So if you say that time passes when there is no change, you say something that is impossible to know, as a matter of principle. Time does not exist independent of change. Just in the same way that space does not exist without lengths or distances. Both space and time are abstract principles without physical meaning. Distances and changes have physical meaning: they can be observed.

How would you know? Observing is already a process in itself, so this is an unanswerable question. Fact is that 'time' is always connected to change. So the step to state that time is change (or if you wish, an abstraction of change) seems quite logical. What can we say about something that only exists when we measure? That's too general. I don't know what is happening in Sidney right now, but of course there is a lot happening. But of something that is accessible only by something happening, as with time, I am inclined to say 'yes'. Time has no objectivity. Change has.

Yes, you are right. But given that QM not only brings difficulties in our understanding of the concept of time, it also brings difficulties in our understanding of the concept of locality, I will not dive too deep into this problem. Just this: you suggest that nothing has changed as long as the atom did not decay (if you suggest the opposite, then you are assuming the existence of hidden parameters). Now assume Physicist A produces artificial radioactive nuclei, say with a halftime of 1 hour. Say he produces 100 of them. After 1 hour he has 50 left. Now, (in nearly no time), he extracts the 50 left and gives them to Physicist B. Will, by measuring the decay of these 50 nuclei, B be able to determine that these nuclei already have been there for 1 hour? So, has time passed for these 50 nuclei? (Just compare with the question 'What way did the photon go in the double split experiment?'.) Or maybe stated another way: assume a portion of absolute stable nuclei. Can we tell how much time has passed for these nuclei? Now we have these two together: 1 gram of lead, 1 gram of the artificial nuclei. After 1 hour, I still have 1 gram of lead, but only 0.5 gram of the radioactive stuff. What is time now? Is it not just convention of us, to say that 1 hour has passed for the lead? If we do not observe change, or at least derive that change has happened (e.g. in geological layers), how can we know that time has passed? Let's do the 'relativistic twin experiment' again. Which physicist will be more successful in checking the time dilatation: the one who sends a kilogram of a radioactive substance, the one who sends a single nucleus of the substance, or the one who sends a kilogram of lead? How far are these physicists justified in saying that they affirmed the 'twin paradox'? Food for thought. Even that this thread is posted in the QM forum, I think it is not possible to get grips on what time is, if you do not clarify it first in a classical context. So my suggestion: keep QM out for the moment.

Yes, I must confess that I did not read all, found and unfound antique documents. I also must confess another error. I just searched for 'Lazarus' at Biblegateway, and saw verses in Luke and John. But, now you challenged me, I looked a bit better into them. The story of 'Lazarus' in Luke is not about the awakening of the dead Lazarus as described in John: he is a beggar in a parable (Luke 16:19). So we have only one documentation, and that only in the latest gospel of the NT. So here my corrected estimations: 1. 10% it is only in the latest gospel of the NT, written 70 years after Jesus death 2. 10% It is only mentioned in John 3. 0% it fits too well in the Christian agenda 4. 0% stories about miracle cures might fit every time, but we know by now there are no miracles, and that is true for all times.