Is time a real thing or just a meter?

[Tim88]

[..]

So, time is not happening when there is no process?

 

Right - according to your own operational definition, time is not happening when all perfect clocks stopped ticking.

Time seems to befuddle people more than length, which is something that is easy to visualize, so there is generally much less discussion of what length is. But the thread's OP did not ask what time is, it asked if it was a real thing or a meter.

 

Yes, you already gave a good answer early on - time is, just as length, a measure (a "meter").

And I would not say "just a meter", as the word "just" makes it sound as of little relevance.

[StringJunky]

 

Right - according to your own operational definition, time is not happening when all perfect clocks stopped ticking.

No. When you put your ruler away does length disappear and yet length is what rulers measure;

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

When you put your ruler away does length disappear and yet length is what rulers measure;

 

 

I would like to point out that there is a subtle difference

between "measurement" and "detection".

 

For example, a compass detects the physical existence and orientation of magnetic field,

but do not measure its intensity.

 

It would seem that a device that measures some physical quantity

must in principle, first of all, also be able to detect physical existence of such quantity.

 

So, to clarify my point, I would like to focus on empirical detection, instead of measurement.

 

If you say that a ruler measures length of space, then does it measure centimeters or inches? What space is fundamentally composed of ? Is there an elementary particle of space to be measured? And now ....

 

1. Can we empirically detect the physical existence of elementary particles of space?
2. Can we empirically detect the physical existence of dimensions of space? If they exist in reality, which way do they point?
3. Is there a Dimension-counter that we could insert into space, and it will display a number of dimensions present?

Just because it seems to us that space is 3D,

it is not a scientific proof yet.

 

Would elementary particles of space have mass, energy?

 

If so, could we transform energy of a mass into extra space, maybe?

[Strange]

For example, a compass detects the physical existence and orientation of magnetic field,

but do not measure its intensity.

 

 

You can build a compass that also measures intensity (in the same way it measures direction). The distinction appears to be only one of accuracy: detection = is it there or not; measurement = how string is it.

 

 

 

If you say that a ruler measures length of space, then does it measure centimeters or inches?

 

Whatever you want.

 

 

 

What space is fundamentally composed of ? Is there an elementary particle of space to be measured?

 

Distance. No.

 

 

 

1. Can we empirically detect the physical existence of elementary particles of space?

 

Not currently, no. There are various hypotheses about quantised space but none are testable at the moment.

 

 

 

1. Can we empirically detect the physical existence of dimensions of space? If they exist in reality, which way do they point?

 

Yes. We know (from experience) that we need to specify four independent values to arrange a meeting for example.

 

 

Just because it seems to us that space is 3D,

it is not a scientific proof yet.

 

There isn't really any such thing as "scientific proof". However, as one of our best ever theories is based on 4D spacetime then it seems a re reasonable working conclusion that there are four dimensions of spacetime. That is about the best you can get in science.

[swansont]

I would like to point out that there is a subtle difference

between "measurement" and "detection".

 

For example, a compass detects the physical existence and orientation of magnetic field,

but do not measure its intensity.

Not a compelling argument. A typical compass is not designed to measure the strength of the field. But there are devices that do, so what's your point?

 

It would seem that a device that measures some physical quantity

must in principle, first of all, also be able to detect physical existence of such quantity.

 

So, to clarify my point, I would like to focus on empirical detection, instead of measurement.

 

If you say that a ruler measures length of space, then does it measure centimeters or inches? What space is fundamentally composed of ? Is there an elementary particle of space to be measured? And now ....

The units used in measurement don't matter.

 

There is no known elementary particle of space, and that's not the topic of this thread. We're discussing time, which can be measured by clocks.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

We're discussing time, which can be measured by clocks.

 

According to GTR, time is space — i.e. the 4th static, spatial dimension of spacetime —

so how exactly do ticking clocks measure static space .... ?!

 

Can clocks empirically detect the physical existence of time?

If not, then they can NOT measure it either.

 

There isn't really any such thing as "scientific proof".

 

 

So, what do you all want from me, then ?

[Strange]

According to GTR, time is space — i.e. the 4th static, spatial dimension of spacetime

 

 

No, time is not space. Spacetime is made up of three spatial and one temporal dimension.

 

 

 

so how exactly do ticking clocks measure static space .... ?!

 

They don't. They measure time. Often by means of some repetitive or cyclic process.

 

 

 

So, what do you all want from me, then ?

 

Less use of garish colours.

Less copying and pasting of text from random papers with no explanation why they are being quoted.

 

More explanation of whatever it is you are trying to say.

Some evidence to support your claims.

Some mathematics to show how well your ideas fit current evidence and how they could be tested (falsified).

[studiot]

Strange I regard your post#104 as being one of your most restrained, quite undeserving of a negative vote so +1

[Strange]

Thank you. I have noticed a lot of very reasonable responses getting negative votes. So I have done my bit to counter some of them, as well.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Strange

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

 

 

No, time is not space. Spacetime is made up of three spatial and one temporal dimension.

 

 

 

 

Well, of course, you can call it a "temporal dimension", which does not change the fact that it is essentially a spatial dimension.

 

I will find you a source to verify my statement that according to GTR, time is space.

[studiot]

 

I will find you a source to verify my statement that according to GTR, time is space.

 

Nah, the correct quote is

 

"time is money, bub."

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by studiot

[StringJunky]

Strange I regard your post#104 as being one of your most restrained, quite undeserving of a negative vote so +1

Yeah, none of the usual razor edges there. He's slipping. Seriously, some people just can't handle errors being pointed out when it's not delivered in cotton wool.

[Blueyedlion]

 

 

I'm not doing any such thing. I am simply explaining what the word "dimension" means, and that it is not an "energy field".

 

The rest of your post is pretty incoherent and doesn't seem very relevant to the topic.

Well i was putting the idea across that what the definition of a dimension is, does not facilitate a much larger understanding of what a dimension can be, such as beyond the physical locations. Is your mind a location? Are your emotions locations? etc. To fix a dimension to a position, is to allow movement, your mind only expands and contracts in awareness. Does awareness physically move? Or your emotions, they only get stronger or weaker. Is the feeling of happiness into euphoria or sadness into depression a physical movement?

 

Science needs to look at these things and figure out what a dimension really is, because i think it makes more sense to say, a point in space is a point symbolizing energy. You have 2 points in space equaling a line, but in reality that's two points of energy, two atoms, two something that's tangible. And when talking about non-physcal things, where's the line in them? if there's no line to draw there's no measurement. But it's still real so how are they quantified.

 

You can also flip this - for within the mind, where is the physical experience? When you think, or to simply be and observe, that's not the same as feeling the touch of your keyboard which is a physical experience. Mental experience has no physical properties but you know your thinking - your knowing of self as the observer is more real then anything else, so what are your mind's dimensions? Since the most real thing there is of you is your knowing of self as you are now, to which you can not measure, then perhaps a dimension is much more than a physical property, and is more to do with the nature of energy outside physicality.

 

Imagine your mind could expand in awareness, engulfing the entirety of all of the universe all as one moment of experience from the very beginning to the end. You would no longer be a passenger riding along one linear time frame going from one moment to the next, like watching a movie in sequence, but you would have the awareness of all the film frames playing all at the same time happening as a whole experience. In this concept, you can imagine this being a dimension could you not? There would be energy but not as solid. There would be 'points' but not as locations.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Strange]

Well i was putting the idea across that what the definition of a dimension is, does not facilitate a much larger understanding of what a dimension can be, such as beyond the physical locations.

 

 

But we are discussing physics.

 

 

 

Science needs to look at these things and figure out what a dimension really is

 

Science knows what a dimension is - because it defines it.

 

 

 

You have 2 points in space equaling a line, but in reality that's two points of energy, two atoms, two something that's tangible.

 

Not necessarily. It could just be two points.

 

The rest of your post is off topic.

[zbigniew.modrzejewski]

A Debate Over the Physics of Time

 

https://www.quantama...-and-cosmology/

 

 

" Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric — that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now” — a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined when we talk about the universe at large. The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe” — a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion. "

 

 

 

What if time is only an illusion? What if it doesn't actually exist? Palle Yourgrau, a Brandeis professor of philosophy, explains that Einstein's general theory of relativity may allow for this possibility. It was first realized by the great logician Kurt Godel in a typically brief paper written for a Festschrift to honor his friend and Princeton neighbor Einstein. Godel is best known for his incompleteness theorem, one of the most important theorems in mathematical logic since Euclid. Palle Yourgrau writes that Godel's paper was almost universally ignored, and he claims that since the logician's death, philosophers have gone out of their way to try to denigrate his work in fields other than logic. In 1942, the logician Kurt Godel suffered a major episode of depression that required a stay at a mental hospital. Upon his release, Albert Einstein, his colleague at the Institute for Advanced Studies, took Godel under his wing and, to cheer him up, gave him "relativity lessons." The two became close friends; they walked to and from their offices at the Institute every day, exchanging ideas about science, philosophy, politics and the lost world of German science in which both men had grown up. By 1949, Godel had produced a remarkable proof: In any universe described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist. Einstein endorsed this result – reluctantly, since it decisively overthrew the classical world-view to which he was committed. But he could find no way to refute it, and in the half-century since then, neither has anyone else. Even more remarkable than this stunning discovery by two of the greatest intellects of all time, however, was what happened afterward: nothing. Cosmologists have proceeded with their work as if time were the linear phenomenon familiar to Newton or Galileo (with some allowances for relativistic distortion); philosophers have refused to recognize Godel as an important philosopher of time. While arguing that these failures constitute major scandals of modern intellectual history, Palle Yourgrau also offers a mitigating explanation. Godel's cosmological findings, he says, are so advanced as to be beyond the ability of modern science to deal with them. A World without Time is a sweeping, ambitious book, and yet poignant and intimate – it tells the story of two magnificent minds put on the shelf by the scientific fashions of their day, and attempts to rescue from undeserved obscurity the brilliant work they did together.

[Blueyedlion]

 

 

But we are discussing physics.

 

I think you're missing the point, I'm saying there's a good chance that the mind isn't something we should identify as an illusion or something outside of physics that only the brain can tell us about. But as to say, something physics can definitely define as an energy that has cause and affect. Something physics has all the room in the world to explore, if it just didn't isolate reality to what it is known as physical. In art we call this the negative space - the shape of your computer is the positive space, and the background empty space around it is the negative. So if you like, imagine all of physicality is the positive space and the mind is negative space. It's still there, apart of the same whole, but it acts in a way we don't notice because it requires the physicality or positive space to be pushed to the front to be noticed.

 

Imagine if we addressed emotions and the mind as we do with physics, as aspects of energy onto themselves overlapping with our 3D reality. In this way of thinking, what a dimension is, isn't just points and lines represented in three dimensional space, but a variety of realities within the same 'space' but in different layers. Layers we only know in part as the mind and emotions. What this can also tell us about time, is that time would no be something linear like an arrow, because your mind doesn't operate like an arrow, it expands, maybe time expands and contracts in awareness. When you're depressed time feels like it's slowing down, when you're happy it speeds up. Time adjusts to your very experience. But when we look at time through the narrow lens of what is physical, it gets very limiting.

 

 

 

Science knows what a dimension is - because it defines it.

 

Science knows what it is in part. Here's something fun to think about - realize that what ever is defined as singular will always be apart of something else in both a larger construct or a smaller one. An apple is a smaller part of a tree and a bigger part of it's atomic equivalence. Just in the same way the apple, a human and a planet are the atomic equivalence of the universe. As soon as you try to define something as is, you're misidentifying it because you're not including the other parts it's apart of related as everything else. Because nothing is isolated from anything, everything is connected. When science tries to put down labels to grasp reality, the problem is as soon as they go by labeling something as a thing, they are now disconnecting its relevance from something else it's already apart of by saying this thing is separate. So when we define what is - be aware that knowing and accepting a definition does not then place it as a fully knowing now then by registered as all it can ever be. That would be immature and arrogant.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Strange]

A Debate Over the Physics of Time

 

 

And? What about it?

 

I think you're missing the point, I'm saying there's a good chance that the mind isn't something we should identify as an illusion or something outside of physics that only the brain can tell us about.

 

You are missing the point: you want to talk about something that is not physics (emotion, mind, etc). So stop hijacking this thread and create your own (under Philosophy or Psychology or wherever is appropriate).

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Let's keep the philosophy and alternative ways of looking at the world separate please. This thread is in the main physics forum and discussion here will be science-based. Any more hijacks will be hidden. Please please open a thread in philosophy or psychology if you wish to discuss the ontology or perception of time.

 

Do not respond to this moderation

 

[Tim88]

No. When you put your ruler away does length disappear and yet length is what rulers measure;

 

When you put your clock away, physical processes don't stop progressing and clocks don't stop ticking.

[Strange]

 

When you put your clock away, physical processes don't stop progressing and clocks don't stop ticking.

 

 

So with no rulers space would still exist. And with no clocks (including natural physical processes) time would still exist.

[Tim88]

So with no rulers space would still exist. And with no clocks (including natural physical processes) time would still exist.

 

No, that's a logical error. The counterpart of natural physical processes (from which we observe time) is objects or bodies (from which we observe length, not "space"). Then your full "So" sentence becomes:

"So with no rulers (including natural bodies) length would still exist. And with no clocks (including natural physical processes) time would still exist."

 

Without matter and physical processes, "length" and "time" as currently defined in physics would not exist. For physics we do need operational definitions, and if we don't even have natural "rulers" (e.g. 1 el) and "clocks" (e.g. 1 day), we cannot proceed.

[Strange]

 

No, that's a logical error. The counterpart of natural physical processes (from which we observe time) is objects or bodies (from which we observe length, not "space"). Then your full "So" sentence becomes:

"So with no rulers (including natural bodies) length would still exist. And with no clocks (including natural physical processes) time would still exist."

 

 

Yep. That is exactly what I meant. I almost included the first parenthetical bit but decided it was too obvious.

 

 

 

Without matter and physical processes, "length" and "time" as currently defined in physics would not exist. For physics we do need operational definitions, and if we don't even have natural "rulers" (e.g. 1 el) and "clocks" (e.g. 1 day), we cannot proceed.

 

There are models, such as the Milne solution to the Einstein Field Equations, that are "empty" - containing no matter or energy. They still define space and time. So, "as currently defined in physics" space and time do exist independently of matter and physical processes.

[Tim88]

Without rulers and clocks, such models cannot be tested - that's outside of physics.

And of course, that's also not what such theories mean. They are still meant to be valid for an almost empty universe.

[Strange]

Without rulers and clocks, such models cannot be tested - that's outside of physics.

 

Well, there was a recent paper that compared the Milne model against the data for accelerating expansion (and found quite a good match). So it seems the models can be tested.

 

 

 

They are still meant to be valid for an almost empty universe.

 

Or even a completely empty universe.

[Randolpin]

Can we really sure that G.R.,really define what is the nature of time?