Strange Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Can we really sure that G.R.,really define what is the nature of time? The theory works incredibly well when tested. That is the best we can do in science. Science doesn't say anything about "reality"; that is the domain of philosophy. Edited November 16, 2016 by Strange
StringJunky Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Can we really sure that G.R.,really define what is the nature of time? It seems to me that it is exquisitely accurate, within its domain, to the limit of present technology. Edited November 16, 2016 by StringJunky
Randolpin Posted November 16, 2016 Author Posted November 16, 2016 So I analyzed your answers.As for now, science has an incomplete picture of time.
Strange Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 So I analyzed your answers.As for now, science has an incomplete picture of time. Science has an incomplete picture of everything! That is the nature of science. Also, just because scientific knowledge is incomplete, doesn't mean it is OK to make stuff up and claim it is as valid as scientific theories. 1
swansont Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 Can we really sure that G.R.,really define what is the nature of time? Physics theories do not purport to tell us the true nature of anything. They are models that tell us how things behave. You want metaphysics, in 12A, down the hall.
Phi for All Posted November 16, 2016 Posted November 16, 2016 So I analyzed your answers.As for now, science has an incomplete picture of time. Since you seem to have an incomplete picture personally, aren't you just projecting that lack onto science? If you don't know GR, how are you analyzing answers about time that pertain to it?
Sorcerer Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 No there is no particle of time or space. Wouldn't the minimum measurable interval of time and space, the Planck length/time , be considered the unit of time and of space? I know a unit isn't exactly a particle. However a photon is and it is our interactions with a photons properties that give these units. Therefore if photons are deemed to be real, by induction time and length should also be real.
Mordred Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) You can readily use units of volume (space) and to maintain dimensionality equate time to a measuring rod ct. Nothing wrong with that. However trying to state its equal to a particle is another matter. For one thing volume isn't a particle property. There is a class of particles that are little more than bookkeeping devices. In GR its called a test particle. In inflation an example is the curvaton or inflaton. These are at best called quasi-particles. They however must have a least one valid particle property. As far as spinfoam which uses the Planck units you mentioned. These are actually descriptions of action within the units you mentioned. Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred
studiot Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 There are two quite different and incompatible definitions of 'particle' used in Physics. This incompatibility is fine so long as you do not try to mix the domains of definition as is being done here.
Mordred Posted November 18, 2016 Posted November 18, 2016 There are two quite different and incompatible definitions of 'particle' used in Physics. This incompatibility is fine so long as you do not try to mix the domains of definition as is being done here. While I understand what your getting at other readers may not. Could you clarify
Randolpin Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 If there is no particle of time and space how can we know that time is real?
StringJunky Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 (edited) If there is no particle of time and space how can we know that time is real? If you arrive at the same point in space and time in the road as a 40 ton lorry, is time real? Edited November 19, 2016 by StringJunky
Randolpin Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 If there is no particle of time and space how can we know that time is real?
Strange Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 If there is no particle of time and space how can we know that time is real? That is a non sequitur. There is no particle of sound. Does that mean sound does not exist?
Randolpin Posted November 19, 2016 Author Posted November 19, 2016 That is a non sequitur. There is no particle of sound. Does that mean sound does not exist? Sounds are waves so did time has wave also which we can detect. That is a non sequitur. There is no particle of sound. Does that mean sound does not exist? Sounds are waves by which we can detect and had useful applications.Is time have such a wave-like property which we can detect or it's just exist in the mathematics of G.R.? That is a non sequitur. There is no particle of sound. Does that mean sound does not exist? Sounds are waves and we can detect it and also it has useful applications.Is time also has a wave-like property for which we are able to detect or it's just exist in the mathematics of G.R.?
Strange Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 Sounds are waves by which we can detect and had useful applications.Is time have such a wave-like property which we can detect or it's just exist in the mathematics of G.R.? Not everything we measure has to be either a particle or a wave. Time and space exist in the mathematics of physics as dimensions. Whether they "just" exist in the mathematics is a metaphysical question that has nothing to do with science. Try the philosophy forum.
imatfaal Posted November 20, 2016 Posted November 20, 2016 ! Moderator Note Please open a thread in Philosophy if you wish to further discuss ontology of time. This thread is now locked - to avoid it becoming another 30 page ramble in poorly thought-out philosophy like the last long time thread. We really mean it - please open a thread in philosophy; the discussion is a good one to have but here is not the place PS - And feel free to open another thread here on time iff it is a question of physics rather than metaphysics.
Recommended Posts