Absolute time

[geordief]

I feel I am starting to get this. Absolute time does not exist. It has been shown in theory (in a loosely termed way) and also experimentally.

 

It now is starting to feel like a second nature to me but I would like to ask a question (one that may have been posed many times ,no doubt).

 

What are the philosophical (or just plain down to earth) consequences of this new understanding (I assume it was not an understanding prior to Einstein's Relativity theorems) ?

 

Clearly one consequence is simply that we have to get with the program and appreciate the world as it is rather than how we would like it to be but are there any broad "world view" understandings that arise or are we really just limited to practical understandings?

[Velocity_Boy]

In my opinion, questioning the true nature of time offers us no discernible advantages or gains. Unless of course you're a theoretical physicist and that sort of stuff is what you do. But for the layman, well, for everybody, like it or not we humans here on this tiny 3rd rock are constrained (trapped?) into a state of time where it is purely linear. That is, time will progress during your life second by second by minute by hour by day........

 

To us, in the real world, time can never be nothing more than the passing of events. It's actually a continual "slide show" of the present moment. As they each snap in and out of existence. Neither the future nor the past even exist! Except in your own mind. Sure, all this stuff is fun to think about but I do not believe it offers an ounce of applicable value in the real and tangible physical world. Well, except in maybe the way we sometimes calm ourselves after doing something stupid or wrong by telling ourselves "Hey, in five years nobody will even remember this!" LOL

 

Far more useful topics to dwell upon, I believe, or such things as the nature of Existence; or perhaps what constitutes sentience? Awareness? Or intelligence? Is there a soul? Is our entire "self", our personality, our "me" only a collection of chemicals and neurons firing back and forth inside the 3 lb. organ we call our "brain?" As the materialist neurologists tell us? To me, that stuff has some real-world value. But time? Not so much. Indeed, I equate much time travel pondering and such as not a lot more than mental masturbation.

[Bender]

Simultaneous events for you are not simultanious for other observers.

[studiot]

 

 

What are the philosophical (or just plain down to earth) consequences of this new understanding (I assume it was not an understanding prior to Einstein's Relativity theorems) ?

 

To address the question part of your OP, here is a paraphrasing of a long section by William Berkson on this very subject.

 

Up until Einstein physical substances (bodies) were regarded as having the following characteristics.

 

1) Definite, unique location in space and time.

 

2) Identifiable properties, uniquely specifiable that are always present with the body. Generally these properties are conserved in during changes in space and/or time.

 

The notion of substance was incorporated into the scientific approach; scientific development was aimed at deducing all laws in terms of the motion of the substance. These Laws were regarded as the basic laws of the Universe.

 

Einstein denied the existence of physical substance in this role or meaning. He thought that we cannot uniquely assign to any portion of matter or the field the properties that were traditionally regarded as substantial.

In different frames they will have different values, according to the Lorenz transformations and Einstein asserted that we cannot regard any of these different values as the real one. All are equally real.

For instance the mass of an object cannot be uniquely specified as in different frames an object will 'have' different masses and none can be singled out as the real mass.

Similarly the same applies to the space occupied by that body; the dimensions of a body are different in different frames.

The times associated with different parts of an extensive body will also be different so we cannot even view extension as a substantial property.

 

Furthermore these arguments also apply to any aether we propose, dispelling the validy of an aether.

 

Properties formerly and subsequently regarded as insubstantial such as the speed of light are the same in all coordinate systems.

 

I would recommend Berkson's book as offering some clear and well researched and thought out insights, both philosophical and scientific, although there is some wading through to be done as well.

There are many extracts from published writings, papers and lectures of Faraday, Maxwell, Lorenz, Einstein and a host of others.

 

Fields of force

A development of a World View from Faraday to Einstein. (actually he goes a bit back before Faraday and forward beyond Einstein)

[geordief]

 

To address the question part of your OP, here is a paraphrasing of a long section by William Berkson on this very subject.

 

Up until Einstein physical substances (bodies) were regarded as having the following characteristics.

 

1) Definite, unique location in space and time.

 

2) Identifiable properties, uniquely specifiable that are always present with the body. Generally these properties are conserved in during changes in space and/or time.

 

The notion of substance was incorporated into the scientific approach; scientific development was aimed at deducing all laws in terms of the motion of the substance. These Laws were regarded as the basic laws of the Universe.

 

Einstein denied the existence of physical substance in this role or meaning. He thought that we cannot uniquely assign to any portion of matter or the field the properties that were traditionally regarded as substantial.

In different frames they will have different values, according to the Lorenz transformations and Einstein asserted that we cannot regard any of these different values as the real one. All are equally real.

For instance the mass of an object cannot be uniquely specified as in different frames an object will 'have' different masses and none can be singled out as the real mass.

Similarly the same applies to the space occupied by that body; the dimensions of a body are different in different frames.

The times associated with different parts of an extensive body will also be different so we cannot even view extension as a substantial property.

 

Furthermore these arguments also apply to any aether we propose, dispelling the validy of an aether.

 

Properties formerly and subsequently regarded as insubstantial such as the speed of light are the same in all coordinate systems.

 

I would recommend Berkson's book as offering some clear and well researched and thought out insights, both philosophical and scientific, although there is some wading through to be done as well.

There are many extracts from published writings, papers and lectures of Faraday, Maxwell, Lorenz, Einstein and a host of others.

 

Fields of force

A development of a World View from Faraday to Einstein. (actually he goes a bit back before Faraday and forward beyond Einstein)

That is very helpful. I may do that . I have found it on ebay quite easily and hope I will be able to do it some justice if I go ahead and order it.

[Velocity_Boy]

Simultaneous events for you are not simultanious for other observers.

Hmm..I think they are.

 

And if you think not, please explain? And I'm speaking of real world events. Ones that we experience ever day. Not hypothetical mental picture games like some guy riding on a beam of light. After all, you did say that events for me are not simultaneous for other observers.

Thanks.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[goldglow]

I feel I am starting to get this. Absolute time does not exist. It has been shown in theory (in a loosely termed way) and also experimentally.

 

It now is starting to feel like a second nature to me but I would like to ask a question (one that may have been posed many times ,no doubt).

 

What are the philosophical (or just plain down to earth) consequences of this new understanding (I assume it was not an understanding prior to Einstein's Relativity theorems) ?

 

Clearly one consequence is simply that we have to get with the program and appreciate the world as it is rather than how we would like it to be but are there any broad "world view" understandings that arise or are we really just limited to practical understandings?

Can i make a light-hearted case FOR absolute time? Einstein, sitting on a train in Ulm station, was struck by the thought that, if the train left the station at the speed of light, then, to his eyes , the time on the station clock would never change. This doesn't mean that time would stop or slow down,( his cup of tea would still get cold ), as people in the station would see the clock work as normal. However, would someone leaving Ulm on a train at half the speed of light see the clock take longer to change time than those people in the station,

but see the clock change time slower than someone leaving the station at a quarter of the speed of light, or would the constant speed of light make the clock move the same for everybody who wasn't travelling as fast as Einstein? In any case, the absolute time by the clock never changes, only the observers relative perception of the clock face changes, which could, for want of a better phrase, be just a trick of the light.

[geordief]

Can i make a light-hearted case FOR absolute time? Einstein, sitting on a train in Ulm station, was struck by the thought that, if the train left the station at the speed of light, then, to his eyes , the time on the station clock would never change. This doesn't mean that time would stop or slow down,( his cup of tea would still get cold ), as people in the station would see the clock work as normal. However, would someone leaving Ulm on a train at half the speed of light see the clock take longer to change time than those people in the station,

but see the clock change time slower than someone leaving the station at a quarter of the speed of light, or would the constant speed of light make the clock move the same for everybody who wasn't travelling as fast as Einstein? In any case, the absolute time by the clock never changes, only the observers relative perception of the clock face changes, which could, for want of a better phrase, be just a trick of the light.

Do we confuse measurement of time with the phenomenon of change?

 

We say time moves at one second per second. Does this just mean the process does not require measurement for it to occur?

 

Could we say that "one second per second " (the usual way to describe proper time, I think ) implies the disappearance of both numerator and denominator as they cancel out entirely?

[swansont]

Hmm..I think they are.

 

And if you think not, please explain? And I'm speaking of real world events. Ones that we experience ever day. Not hypothetical mental picture games like some guy riding on a beam of light. After all, you did say that events for me are not simultaneous for other observers.

Thanks.

 

 

Just because you lack the precision in your instruments to notice does not mean the phenomenon is not taking place. One reason that relativity seems so odd is that is not something we experience with "every day" conditions. We don't travel particularly fast, and we don't wear time pieces that are particularly precise. To observe these effects at least one of those things has to change.

[Janus]

Hmm..I think they are.

 

And if you think not, please explain? And I'm speaking of real world events. Ones that we experience ever day. Not hypothetical mental picture games like some guy riding on a beam of light. After all, you did say that events for me are not simultaneous for other observers.

Thanks.

To illustrate Swansont's post. If, according to observers on the ground, it is exactly 12:00 in LA when it is exactly 3:00 in New York( accounting for time zones), then if you are on an airliner flying from LA to New York, there will be an additional ~11 nanosecond difference between the clocks. It will be just the tiniest bit later in New York than exactly 3:00 when it is exactly 12:00 in LA. For the ground observers, 3:00 in New York and 12:00 in LA are simultaneous, while for you, it is not.

This is a real difference that occurs in everyday life, it is just too small to be of practical consequence. But just because something is too small to measure by everyday measurement limitations does not mean it doesn't exist.

[quickquestion]

Time is a navigational piece. Like fast forward through a movie.

 

If solipsism is not real, it means you fast forward through your life, forget it, then enter someone's body, and go back to the state of matter of 10 years ago, but from a different perspective.

 

Essentially, time is just changing perspectives. Through time we can see 3d space.

 

Absolute time does not exist. But coherent states of matter do. Two people can see the same car. Thus they know the car exists.

Edited April 23, 2017 by quickquestion

[Tim88]

What exactly do you understand with "absolute time", and why do you think that it has been shown not to exist? Negatives are generally hard to show!

Note the subtle difference with the fact that time is not absolute. Maybe that is what you meant?

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Tim88
precision, start with disambiguation

[Mordred]

On 4/10/2017 at 5:16 PM, geordief said:

That is very helpful. I may do that . I have found it on ebay quite easily and hope I will be able to do it some justice if I go ahead and order it.

Though I may not have read the same material Studiot mentioned. I have never come across any materials that William Berkson has written a waste. 

I'm going to flip the question for you.

We have no problem accepting signal delays in electromagnetic field interactions google propogation delay.

So why does everyone not accept the same phenomena with other field interactions such as spacetime?

Now I don't want a ton of posts answering the above. Instead I want those that have difficulty accepting the equivalence to look at themself and ask yourself 

"What is the difference" ? Is there any difference ?

Remember mass is resistance to inertia change when you ask that question and also remember solid/corpuscular is an illusion of our interpretation of field interactions.

 

Everything we percieve or measure or interact with is subjective to signal delays regardless of what types of field interactions are involved. Aka time dilation "Observer effects"

Why does few people not understand why an object gains inertia mass yet understands that it is harder to stop a speeding bullet, when fundamentally they are the same? As an object gains momentum its kinetic energy and ability to perform work increases.

Ever try to stop a bullet? fundamentally inertia mass is the same pheneomena. Its much harder to stop a speeding bullet than one rolling on a table. Yet we cannot accept the same phenomena with spacetime

why? (other than most people don't know the correct meaning of mass as defined by physics lol) A hint on another key difference in Newtonian physics compared to relativity.

In Newtonian physics the object does not gain inertia mass.... 

You want to accept time dilation you have to accept signal propogation delays as a fundametal property  in field interactions and inertial mass as defined by

mass is resistance to inertia change and not the amount an object weighs.

Length contraction being simply the measuring stick of the signals propogation delay from a to b keeping c invariant via ((ct),x,y,z)

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Mordred