Klaynos Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Would you care to define what you mean by physical? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Would you care to define what you mean by physical? Good call. I think his definition creates a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Photons are not made of energy any more than they are made of momentum, or angular momentum, which are two additional properties they possess So, what photons are made of, then .... ?? Would you care to define what you mean by physical? Well, my definition of "physical" is all that is empirically detectable and is the subject matter of experimental Physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Well, my definition of "physical" is all that is empirically detectable and is the subject matter of experimental Physics. Then trivially, yes, time is physical. We have empirical measurements of it (clocks) and many equations in the physical sciences which include it. (On what are photons made of, they're fundemental, a photon is made of a photon. The same can be said for electrons etc...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 So, what photons are made of, then .... ?? What a bizarre question. Well, my definition of "physical" is all that is empirically detectable and is the subject matter of experimental Physics. So photons, time, length, mass, etc are all physical. Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 On what are photons made of, they're fundemental, a photon is made of a photon. The same can be said for electrons etc...) Yes, photons are called elementary particles in quantum physics. Photon is made of a photon. Well, who could disagree with that? Time is made of time, and space is made of space .... " Photons are not made of energy any more than they are made of momentum, or angular momentum, which are two additional properties they possess " Are photons particles of matter? Do they have energy, and/or mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Photon is made of a photon. Well, who could disagree with that? Indeed. After all, what would you expect them to be made of? Brass? Are photons particles of matter? Do they have energy, and/or mass? No, they are quanta ("particles") of electromagnetic radiation. They do have energy. They do not have mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 9000 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 "Transcendental Aesthetic": space, time, and transcendental idealism. Despite its brevity - a mere thirty pages in the first edition and forty in the second - the "Transcendental Aesthetic" argues for a series of striking, paradoxical and even revolutionary theses that determine the course of the whole remainder of the Critique and that have been the subject of a very large proportion of the scholarly work devoted to the Critique in the last two centuries. '3 In this section, Kant attempts to distinguish the contribution to cognition made by our receptive faculty of sensibility from that made solely by the objects that affect us (A 2 1-2 /B 36), and argues that space and time are pure forms of all intuition contributed by our own faculty of sensibility, and therefore forms of which we can have a priori knowledge. This is the basis for Kant' s resolution of the debate about space and time that had raged between the Newtonians, who held space and time to be self -subsisting entities existing independently of the objects that occupy them, and the Leibnizians, who held space and time to be systems of relations, conceptual constructs based on non-relational properties inhering in the things we think of as spatiotemporally related. '4 Kant's alternat ive to both of these positions is that space and time are neither subsistent be ings nor inherent in things as they are in themselves, but are rather only fo rms of our sensibility, hence conditions under which objects of experience can be given at all and the fundamental principle of their representation and individuation. Only in this way, Kant argues, can we adequately account for the necessary manifestation of space and time throughout all experience as single but infinite magnitudes - the feature of experience that Newton attempted to account for with his meta physically incoherent notion of absolute space and time as the sensorium dei - and also explain the a priori yet synthetic character of the mathematical propositions expressing our cognition of the physical properties of quantities and shapes given in space and time - the epistemological certainty undercut by Leibniz' s account of space and time as mere rela tions abstracted fr om anteced ently existing objects (A 22-5 I B 37-4 1, A 30--2 IB46-9). Kant's thesis that space and time are pure forms of intuition leads him to the paradoxical conclusion that although space and time are empirically real, they are transcendentally ideal, and so are the objects given in !hem. Although the precise meaning of this claim remains subject to debate ,'5 in general terms it is the claim that it is only from the human standpoint that we can speak of space, time, and the spatiotemporality of the objects of experience, thus that we cognize these things not as they are in themselves but only as they appear under the conditions of our sensibility (A 26-30/B 42-5, A 32-48 /B49-73). This is Kant's famous doctrine of transcendental idealism, which is employed throughout the Critique of Pure Reason (and the two subsequent critiques) in a variety of ways, both positively, as in the "Transcendental Aesthetic" and "Discipline of Pure Reason," to account for the possibility of synthetic a priori cognition in mathematics, and negatively, as in the "Transcendental Dialectic," to limit the scope of our cognition to the appearances given to our sensibility, while denying that we can have any cognition of things as they are in themselves, that is, as transcendent realities constituted as they are independently of the constitution of our cognitive capacities. http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 How does that relate to physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Then trivially, yes, time is physical. We have empirical measurements of it (clocks) Well, I have not been aware that clocks actually empirically detect physical existence and the velocity of the flow of time, which is one second per second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 9000 Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) How does that relate to physics? No idea. Thanks for the penetrating response. It relates to the OP. How does Kant resolving (or attempting to) a debate between Newtonians and Leibnizians relate to physics. No idea dude. Would be happy if you could think about it and let me know if you work it out. Now I think about it it has absolutely nothing to do with physics. I might as well have just copy pasted from a basketweaving handbook. I'm feeling pretty silly about my stupid post. "Is time a real thing" "Kant's thesis that space and time are pure forms of intuition leads him to the paradoxical conclusion that although space and time are empirically real, they are transcendentally ideal, and so are the objects given in !hem." Damn, why I can't I make relevant and useful posts? Why do I waste everybody's time? Edited November 10, 2016 by Over 9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Well, I have not been aware that clocks actually empirically detect physical existence and the velocity of the flow of time, which is one second per second. That is exactly what clocks do. As they measure time and your definition of "physicality" is something that can be measured, then by your definition time is physical. No idea. Thanks for the penetrating response. It relates to the OP. I agree that the OP seems to have been more of philosophical question than a physics one. But as he asked it in Physics, rather than Philosophy, I think most people have attempted to give answers based on physics. Hopefully, your response is closer to what he is looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Well, I have not been aware that clocks actually empirically detect physical existence and the velocity of the flow of time, which is one second per second. I was using your definition of physical, which didn't include existence not velocity of flow. Could you define existence, what on earth a fire if time is (1 second per 1 second is pretty much meaningless). And perhaps not change the goalposts? You gave a definition how about sticking to it rather than deciding you don't like the answer your own definition have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randolpin Posted November 11, 2016 Author Share Posted November 11, 2016 Time is an illusion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 What do you find illusionary about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Time is an illusion. There are posts before yours and some after. So probably not an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Time is an illusion. Two massive objects cannot occupy the same spatial co-ordinates at the same time but they can at different times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Two massive objects cannot occupy the same spatial co-ordinates at the same time but they can at different times. Yes, precisely. It's why you can cross the street without being hit by a bus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Yes, precisely. It's why you can cross the street without being hit by a bus You mentioned it once and I've never forgotten it. Rather irrefutable logic on the macro level, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Reminiscent of Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley's claims about the nonexistence of matter: After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Reminiscent of Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley's claims about the nonexistence of matter: http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html Heard that before and I thought it was Churchill. Did I also hear that Johnson was a really despicable character? A very good retort no matter who it was ,but it would not work on the internet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 So, is there an elementary particle of time, or of space? Or, perhaps, time and space are waves? Does time, or space, have energy, like photon or a wave? Does a merry-go-around measure time also, like a clock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) Does a merry-go-around measure time also, like a clock? Yes. It's no different to using the sun as a clock. Anything that changes predictably can be used as a clock. Edited November 12, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordief Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Yes. It's no different to using the sun as a clock. Anything that changes predictably can be used as a clock. Do we know why atomic clocks are predictable (there is no "internal mechanism" is there?) Is it because all the different types of atomic clocks are all identical to each other and so , in the same environment they all run to the same beat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Do we know why atomic clocks are predictable (there is no "internal mechanism" is there?) Is it because all the different types of atomic clocks are all identical to each other and so , in the same environment they all run to the same beat? Swansont is your man for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts