A real equation to time

[Maze.E]

Hey im new to this forum, my 1st post anyways just wanted to say dont anyone wonder why there is no real equation to time, like the equations speed=distance/time does not really explain it does it because weight and other veribles such as gravity affects its dont no1 wonder why no1 is smart enough to give a real explination.

[JaKiri]

Time is a David Bowie song.

 

In a more sensible answer: it's a pointless question. "Time" is a concept that's not made up of anything else, just like you can't break "length" or "mass" down into other measures.

[Luminous]

Image our world as a graph. With X,Y and Z for our dimensions. Now imagine that the plane the graph is on is time. Now imagine there are some points at whatever coordinates. Moving from any one point to another would require going through time. The coordinates dont neccisarily have to be literally moving from one place to another, they could be an event, an action, whatever.

e.g. point A(5,3) my heart beat, to point B (6,4) my second heart beat. to get from one to the other you must cross the plane of time, and abrakadabra, you just got older. technically if one could stop all movement, there would be no time. I dont just mean standing still, but stopping every atom & molecule from moving, and time wouldnt exist, there would be no events, nothing happening, no points on the graph!

[Yggdrasil]

The definition of time that makes most sense to me is based off of the second law of thermodynamics. Increasing time is in the dirrection of increasing entropy of the universe. Of course, that defines time only qualitatively but not quantitatively.

[[Tycho?]]

Punctuation. Grammar. Please use them.

 

Its an open question as to how time works. It is not necessarly because nobody is "smart enough", but because we do not have enough observational data to base a hypothosis on.

[eon_rider]

It's a question of great interest.

But I think it does have little bearing in the lab.

 

But time is debated often by scientists.

Not just philosophers.

 

As long as time is a variable in scientific equations, in

business, in home life, in ageing, then it is naturally a subject of interest to many.

 

(just my 2 cents conflated with my reading on the issue.)

 

so...Time is only a conceptual apparatus on the one hand,

but on the other it may be a physical system of some kind.

 

Neural changes may mark time in a certain areas of the brain,

Neural changes happen in response to environmental changes,

then we translate that into the hard fact that time has passed.

 

It could be all areas of the brain, and nervous system, and body marking changes in the environment in concert and marking it somewhere in the brain.

 

My understanding is that atomic clocks mark the vibrations or changes of certain atoms. We conflate (synchronise?) our natural sense of time (internal marking of environmental change) with the information from the clock.

 

Be it an atomic clock or wrist watch or whatever.

(before clocks time was marked externally by sunsets and sunrises,

change of seasons, and ageing)

 

To sum up my weak understanding:

 

Time may be simply an neural measure of "change in environment."

T = CIE

time = change in environment?

 

I dunno?

 

I think science can nail it down

better in the future.

 

I've never read any definitive answer as to "what time is".

 

I'm no expert.

 

best,

 

eon.

 

PS. Anyone have a link to a clear definitive explanation of time?

[eon_rider]

Actually........just finished reading a paper on time published in Foundation in Physics Letters by Peter Lynds

 

Very cool theory of time that's got some

good logic in it, but seems to upset aspects of calculus.

His theory of time certainly appears to clear up an ancient paradox or two. (Zeno's)

 

His personal story's pretty amazing too.

 

One can google info about his papers on time and his story if interested.

 

eon.

[Luminous]

Time doesnt exists. There is only change. Without some kind of energy transfer there is no change, hence no "time"

[MetaFrizzics]

20th century physics can be described by a 'state'.

The 'state' it is in is one of incomplete knowledge.

One flaw in the picture many people tend to form of space-time and physics is a too-literal interpretation of Minkowski Space.

 

Since we can easily plot one or two dimensions of space along with a dimension of time, and create a 2 or 3-d picture of events and exchanges in space-time, it appears that motion is just an illusion. One can take a deterministic stance and imagine that everything is fixed actually, and causally determined.

 

Given that physical laws appear to be 'reversable' in time, and the arrow of time has not been satisfactorily defined or 'proven', we can postulate that our perception of the present, and our notion of time is just an illusion, or an artifact of our reasoning process. This has been seriously proposed by many physicists.

 

But just because the drawing on our desk has no motion, it is wrong-headed and illusory to think that motion itself and our experience of time is an illusion. Even Einstein (and many others) was mesmerized by his 4-dimensional representation of space-time. It seemed he had proven to his own satisfaction that 'God doesn't play dice.'.

 

But I think this view was just an inevitable but naive first interpretation of a set of theories that were poorly understood for the first 100 years of their existance (and probably still are).

 

Time, and our perception of past, present, and future, is as real as anything else in our world of experience, and one would have to smoke biker weed to stare at a diagram of Minkowski Spacetime and be fooled for very long.

 

The fact that the arrow of time and our understanding of past/present/future is poorly understood is not a sign that these are illusions, but rather a sign of the provisional and incomplete nature of our physical theories.

[DQW]

Given that physical laws appear to be 'reversable' in time

Most physical phenomena do not exhibit time reversal (T) symmetry. Counter-examples to your claim are : T-asymmetry in the (i) weak interaction, and (ii) second law of thermodynamics, and very possibly in (iii) the strong interaction as well (I'm not certain about this though). Any mechanical system with dissipation violates T-symmetry.

 

This negates anything you've said based on this premise.

[MetaFrizzics]

I'm not disputing the basic facts of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

However, the theoretical foundation of the 2nd law is a scandal. Of course Boltzmann's 'irreversibility' of the evolution of his closed system is a self-deception, and attempts to remove the reversiblity of mechanistic models are just hand-waving.

 

As you have pointed out, the only hope for an 'arrow of time' lies in Quantum events. But I wouldn't invest all my eggs in the weak interaction, when we don't even have a GUT.

 

Not only is our best theory QED reversible, it seems impossible to formulate it without particles that move backward in time. The best option we have at the moment is the Transactional Interpretation of QM, which allows backward time travel but controls it with an iron fist and preserves both causality and objective reality.

 

If you can formulate a version of QM that is coherent, complete, and fixes the arrow of time without violating SRT I will be quite impressed.

[franz_liszt]

In order to have backward time travel, you have to prove that the B-theory of time is correct. Why will no one take this issue on? All of you folks surmising is based on the B-theory which is highly suspect.

[timo]

Imho, you´re also highly suspect. Can´t you just make up your "I haven´t understood relativity but I can prove it wrong"-thread like everyone else instead of spamming every thread with your b-theory and waiting for someone to catch the bait?

[franz_liszt]

Excuse me. Why am I highly suspect for wanting people to examine their underlying presuppositions (B-theory of time) which give rise to much of what is being said here. The verificationist/positivist epistemology exhibited has been shown to be bankrupt. Why use it? The B-theory is a metaphysical claim, not a hard-science claim. I don't have a problem with relativity necessarily. I don't think it is fair to say that I am waiting for someone to catch the bait. That just isn't fair. For one, you are reading my intentions, and for two, you are wrong in your reading. I just want someone to come to grips with the epistemological basis for what is being said here and also the seemingly unknowing allegiance to the B-theory which presupposes so much! Why the aversion to inquiry? "Spamming" is a highly inciteful word given the rules of this forum. If every thread that I respond to involves this topic, then that is the way it is. Hardly spamming. Come to grips with your epistemological starting point... that's all.

[timo]

As far as I´m aware, epistomology is a branch of philosophy, not a branch of relativity.

[franz_liszt]

I am not sure whether you are kidding...

But, I think, for those who are not aware, that most of us know that science really doesn't get off the ground without philosophy. So, epistemology (theory of knowledge) really has a lot to say about relativity... that is, what can and cannot be said by relativity about reality.

[[Tycho?]]

I am not sure whether you are kidding...

But' date=' I think, for those who are not aware, that most of us know that science really doesn't get off the ground without philosophy. So, epistemology (theory of knowledge) really has a lot to say about relativity... that is, what can and cannot be said by relativity about reality.[/quote']

 

 

Since when do we need this thing called epistemology to find what relativity says about reality? Relativity tells us that pretty well.

[franz_liszt]

It's not to find out what relativity says about reality (read the post again). Your epistemology gives the parameters for what relativity can say about reality. It's easy. If your epistemology is empiricist, then (say) miracles are a priori impossible. If you have an metaphysical epistemology then miracles are a prioir possible. If you have a verificationist epistemology you a priori reject newtonian physic, not because they are bad physic, but because they don't fit the verificationist/positivist epistemology. Yo, philosophy is what governs every area of thought and study folks.

Also, relativity doesn't say very much, but our interpretations sya a lot. That is really what I am talking about. Our interpretations are governed by our epistemology. Maybe that helps. I just realized that maybe that might be a better way to say it. Does that help and accrue more agreement from the crowd?

[timo]

Yes. See the PM I just sent you for further details and consider my suggestion to make up a seperate thread on this topic if you´re interested in discussing it.