zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 12, 2016 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. And how about something that does not change predictably ?? And how about clocks that do not change predictably ?? And you assume that (the Sun??) the Earth changes predictably ?? 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?
Mordred Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 And how about something that does not change predictably ?? And how about clocks that do not change predictably ?? And you assume that (the Sun??) the Earth changes predictably ?? 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? No there is no particle of time or space.
zapatos Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 And how about something that does not change predictably ?? And how about clocks that do not change predictably ?? And you assume that (the Sun??) the Earth changes predictably ?? 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? No No Yes No No No
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 No No Yes No No No Well, then what is your point ? What do you think ? No there is no particle of time or space. OK. So, is there a field, or a wave, of space, or of time?
zapatos Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 Well, then what is your point ? What do you think ? What is my point about what? I was just answering the questions you asked.
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 What is my point about what? Well, do you expect me to clarify this for you? If yes, why? -2
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) What do you mean by "this"? And, what do you mean by: "What do you mean by" ...... ??? Edited November 12, 2016 by zbigniew.modrzejewski
StringJunky Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 And, what do you mean by: "What do you mean by" ...... ??? Are you taking the piss?
zbigniew.modrzejewski Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 Are you taking the piss? Not yet. But it seems you both are.
zapatos Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 And, what do you mean by: "What do you mean by" ...... ??? You said "Well, do you expect me to clarify this for you?" The word "this" in your sentence is a pronoun. What does it represent? In other words, please repeat that sentence but instead of using the word "this", use the word that represents what you are suggesting I expect you to clarify for me.
StringJunky Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 Not yet. But it seems you both are. You are coming across as deliberately obtuse. 3
Mordred Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) Well, then what is your point ? What do you think ? OK. So, is there a field, or a wave, of space, or of time? You can treat spacetime as a field but more accurately it is the sum of all fields. (electromagnetic, strong, weak). These all influence mass. A better treatment however is the Einstein field equations which includes all possible contributors mentioned above. So yes according to the EFE spacetime is a classical field theory. All forms of energy/mass contribute to the stress energy tensors. It is the stress energy tensor that tells spacetime how to curve. The curvature tells matter how to move. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations Just to be clear under GR space and time is not separable. It is part of the same coin. Just as mass and energy is flip sides of the same coin. Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred
Randolpin Posted November 12, 2016 Author Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) What do you find illusionary about it? Matter changes .Everything changes in this world except change itself.So the amount of change a matter undergone is what represent as time so time is only an illusion.It is not a real thing.It is merely a representation of how much change a matter undergone.I know I could be asserting here but it is what the definition of time for me. Since time= Amount of change a matter had undergone so, Space-time in detailed form is space-(matter change). We can see here that the 4th dimension is the changing property of matter (time). Edited November 12, 2016 by Randolpin
Klaynos Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 Matter changes .Everything changes in this world except change itself.So the amount of change a matter undergone is what represent as time so time is only an illusion.It is not a real thing.It is merely a representation of how much change a matter undergone.I know I could be asserting here but it is what the definition of time for me. Since time= Amount of change a matter had undergone so, Space-time in detailed form is space-(matter change). We can see here that the 4th dimension is the changing property of matter (time). This applies equally well to space (with a few minor changes) so is space only an illusion? If time is an illusion I hope you don't have a job where you need to submit time sheets as you'd be fired pretty quickly.
Randolpin Posted November 12, 2016 Author Posted November 12, 2016 This applies equally well to space (with a few minor changes) so is space only an illusion? If time is an illusion I hope you don't have a job where you need to submit time sheets as you'd be fired pretty quickly. I mean, it is not a real thing being independent as a "thing". It is just like a tape measure, measuring the amount of change a matter undergone.That's why, imposing the idea that time is a thing is only an illusion.
Strange Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 I mean, it is not a real thing being independent as a "thing". It is just like a tape measure, measuring the amount of change a matter undergone.That's why, imposing the idea that time is a thing is only an illusion. I think you have that the wrong way round. We can use changes in matter to measure time. We can also use changes in things which are not matter to measure time. You can also build useful models of universes with space and time but no matter or energy to see how they behave. This "time is change" thing comes up regularly and always goes the same way. It is a bit like deja vu. The same arguments made on both sides. "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." Douglas Adams
Klaynos Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 I mean, it is not a real thing being independent as a "thing". It is just like a tape measure, measuring the amount of change a matter undergone.That's why, imposing the idea that time is a thing is only an illusion. I agree a clock and a tape measure are the same. Time and space are fundementally related. Whether they are things needs a good definition of "thing". Exactly why I got the op to define what he meant by physical earlier.
Mordred Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) yeah the term physical is often misunderstood. Ie physical property. Edited November 12, 2016 by Mordred
Klaynos Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 yeah the term physical is often misunderstood. Ie physical property. It's a common theme on the forum. Virtual, imaginary, physical, real, theory, etc... If you don't get in early with s definition the thread can spiral. You can see here as soon as the OP gave his definition of physical it is trivial that time is consistent with it. Here then went on to change his definition but that's just sloppy.
StringJunky Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 yeah the term physical is often misunderstood. Ie physical property. Would it be equivalent to say "Physical is as pertains to physics?" 1
Klaynos Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 Would it be equivalent to say "Physical is as pertains to physics?" That's not a bad definition, it tends to be used by physicist as things which don't break the known bounds of physics, E.g. a photons rest frame is not physical.
StringJunky Posted November 12, 2016 Posted November 12, 2016 That's not a bad definition, it tends to be used by physicist as things which don't break the known bounds of physics, E.g. a photons rest frame is not physical. That's what I mean. If it can't be measured or doesn't fit in with known physics it's not physical.
swansont Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 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? The oscillators using the same isotope are identical. The perturbations (from e.g. magnetic fields or EM radiation) will not be the same, and the construction may not be the same — you will get a different performance if the "interrogation" time (how long the atoms oscillate before being measured) differs. And there is always random noise. Two identical clocks will not remain synchronized because the noise will not be identical (they will random-walk away from each other) 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? A bad clock, but yes, it could be used as one. And how about something that does not change predictably ?? And how about clocks that do not change predictably ?? And you assume that (the Sun??) the Earth changes predictably ?? 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? Because the earth changes unpredictably on a scale where we notice we no longer use it as the standard of time. Energy is not a property of time. Time's a dimension.
Blueyedlion Posted November 13, 2016 Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) Energy is not a property of time. Time's a dimension. But a dimension is energy. Dimensions are fields of energy. What do you think a dimension is...? It has to have properties right? But anyway... I find it makes sense to see that 'time' is more like an ongoing circle instead of a thread of time where you go, ‘Oh, I’m hungry, it’s lunchtime,’ or ‘oh, I’m tired, it’s must be bedtime.’ It’s the construct or constraints we have to be able to deal with things like that, it helps us conceptualize changes in state, sequences, and other time-related things that are a necessary part of the human experience. For example, It would make more sense to say time is really an illusion, at least in a linear sense. It’s a human construct that’s created by movement through a string of creations. One moment is created, then another, then another, and the consciousness, the energy that is consciousness moves from one creation moment point to the next. That’s how the time illusion is created. Let’s take language. It’s through the very linear human language that sequences are possible. It allows us to arrange events and actions sequentially. With that sequential language, present moments become surrounded by past moments and future moments. So it’s a human fabrication. Think about all the tenses we use: past, present and future. So time exists only in consciousness, it's a function of language, motion, where motion and language create your perception of time. Edited November 13, 2016 by Blueyedlion
Recommended Posts