Time (split from Time and time perception (split from Can I say that Time is Linear?))

[Conscious Energy]

On 3/15/2021 at 5:43 PM, swansont said:

 

Time is something that can be studied in the context of physics. It is relative, not absolute.

 

The proper time of the Universe (the age of the first space(time)point seems to be absolute. Why do you think it is not?

Relativ is the co-ordinate time within Space

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

The proper time of the Universe (the age of the first space(time)point seems to be absolute.

First point?

 

23 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

Why do you think it is not?

I said nothing about the issue. You seem to be making a rather large extrapolation 

23 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

Relativ is the co-ordinate time within Space

OK. And relativity is physics using coordinates within spacetime, which is perfectly consistent with what I said.

 

[Conscious Energy]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

First point?

Yes. t0

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

OK. And relativity is physics using coordinates within spacetime, which is perfectly consistent with what I said.

I agree. 

Time is relative in every point of space which is not the first space(time) moment of existence.

The proper time of the space at t0 has to be absolute (the age of the Universe) and if it is not absolute why and how? 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

Yes. t0

t0 can be any arbitrary time.

Physics doesn’t have an absolute t=0; it doesn’t work earlier than about 10^-43 sec. 

[Conscious Energy]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Physics doesn’t have an absolute t=0; it doesn’t work earlier than about 10^-43 sec. 

I understand that, that is why, to determine t 0 we has to rely on (basic) math.

We can not observe physically t0 but we can predict its physical state from the Laws of Nature determined function of Time to lineary tick towards the future in every point of space. 

If there is no space there is no time, if there is no space and time there is no energy and matter. 0. 

Sorry if not the conventional math you used to but I hope you can perceive what I try to mean: 

t0=s0=e0=m0

t1=s0,0(3D)=e1=m1

Should be

t2=s0,00(3D)=e2=m2  but If I understand we count it as t2=s0,00(3D)=e1=m1

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

but we can predict its physical state from the Laws of Nature determined function of Time to lineary tick towards the future in every point of space. 

If there is no space there is no time, if there is no space and time there is no energy and matter. 0. 

t0=s0=e0=m0

t1=s0,0(3D)=e1=m1

 

Can we ?

Where is it proved that the origin of space (assumng there is such a point) coincides with the origin of time ?

Edited March 18, 2021 by studiot

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

We can not observe physically t0 but we can predict its physical state from the Laws of Nature determined function of Time to lineary tick towards the future in every point of space. 

We can NOT predict the physical state of the universe at t=0. When we try, the densities and temperatures become infinite, which is usually an answer that tells us our maths have failed. 

[iNow]

We also can’t predict it bc it’s already happened. At best, we can postdict it, but even there we struggle for the reasons cited above 

[Conscious Energy]

On 3/18/2021 at 9:41 PM, Phi for All said:

We can NOT predict the physical state of the universe at t=0. When we try, the densities and temperatures become infinite, which is usually an answer that tells us our maths have failed. 

If there is no time and space there is no energy and matter so I can predict that their mathematically expressible value is 0.

t0 is the first information about space and I wonder why we suppose that all currently existing energy and matter is present in that point of space and can absolutely NOT evlolve its amount in the overall universe despite the obvious linear development of space(time).

Edited March 21, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

If there is no time and space there is no energy and matter so I can predict that their mathematically expressible value is 0.

t0 is the first information about space and I wonder why we suppose that all currently existing energy and matter is present in that point of space and can absolutely NOT evlolve its amount in the overall universe despite the obvious linear development of space(time).

 

I don't see an answer to my question to you.

 

On 3/18/2021 at 5:53 PM, studiot said:

 

Can we ?

Where is it proved that the origin of space (assumng there is such a point) coincides with the origin of time ?

 

[Conscious Energy]

Because they can not exist without one another as energy and matter can not exist without space and time. Or is there any prove they can?

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

Because they can not exist without one another as energy and matter can not exist without space and time. Or is there any prove they can?

 

You are the one making the claims, so you are the one who needs to provide proof.

 

t₀ and x₀ are just points on a line.
Mathematically I can extend the lines indefinitely in both directions and there is no mathematical reason that they must coincide.

So my question remains.

 

[Conscious Energy]

t0 is the proper time and x0 is the co-ordinate time. 

I have learned that space and time can not exist without one another. 

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

t0 is the proper time and x0 is the co-ordinate time. 

What on Earth do you mean in relation to this thread ?

[Conscious Energy]

The proper time of the Universe, the current age of the first space(time)point seems to be absolute. 

Relativ is the co-ordinate time within Space

Edited March 21, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[studiot]

35 minutes ago, Conscious Energy said:

The proper time of the Universe, the current age of the first space(time)point seems to be absolute. 

Relativ is the co-ordinate time within Space

You keep repeating this like a mantra, but have not answered anyone's questions about the detail.

The devil is in the detail and also in the fact that you are using conventionally defined terms quite differently from convention.

One more thing. To have a beginning or end time (or any axis) must work on Poincare measure (ie the graduations of the scale get smaller and smaller as you approcah those points so you never actually reach them.
This is similar to why we can't reach absolute zero of 'temperature', which is when incidentally an ideal gas has zero volume ie occupies zero space so exists as space time without space for as long as the gas is at absolute zero.

[Conscious Energy]

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

in the fact that you are using conventionally defined terms quite differently from convention

I try to apply them, maybe you could express why do you think I can or can not. 

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

To have a beginning or end time (or any axis) must work on Poincare measure (ie the graduations of the scale get smaller and smaller as you approcah those points so you never actually reach them.

I see this as a technical question yet we can not solve as we can not apply our math at t0. 

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

can't reach absolute zero of 'temperature', which is when incidentally an ideal gas has zero volume ie occupies zero space so exists as space time without space for as long as the gas is at absolute zero.

I dont really understand what you mean with this. There is a physical barrier, that we can not reach absolute 0 as you will never be able to observe and measure in space(time) without every energy and matter in it. As soon you have an electron in the system its temp is not absolute 0.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Conscious Energy

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

The proper time of the Universe, the current age of the first space(time)point seems to be absolute. 

Repeating this doesn’t make it true.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

If there is no time and space there is no energy and matter so I can predict that their mathematically expressible value is 0.

t0 is the first information about space and I wonder why we suppose that all currently existing energy and matter is present in that point of space and can absolutely NOT evlolve its amount in the overall universe despite the obvious linear development of space(time).

As I understand it, we have absolutely no information back before t+10-45 seconds. So we have no information about t=0

 

On 3/19/2021 at 4:27 AM, Conscious Energy said:

I understand that, that is why, to determine t 0 we has to rely on (basic) math.

We can not observe physically t0 but we can predict its physical state from the Laws of Nature determined function of Time to lineary tick towards the future in every point of space. 

All we can do at this time is speculate.

On 3/19/2021 at 4:27 AM, Conscious Energy said:

If there is no space there is no time, if there is no space and time there is no energy and matter. 0. 

Sorry if not the conventional math you used to but I hope you can perceive what I try to mean: 

t0=s0=e0=m0

t1=s0,0(3D)=e1=m1

Should be

t2=s0,00(3D)=e2=m2  but If I understand we count it as t2=s0,00(3D)=e1=m1

 

I was taught by an astronomer, that space and time (as we know them )evolved at t+10-45 seconds, The highlighted bit is important.

Your first sentence is totally correct. (as we know them) 

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

If there is no time and space there is no energy and matter so I can predict that their mathematically expressible value is 0.

The energy and matter were all there, in densities and temperatures we're able to evaluate once they aren't infinite. Technically, the space is there as well, waiting to expand. And you're only assuming time begins at t=0. We can't know that time existed or not before that. 

The maths in the LCDM model disagree with you, in other words. You're incorrect about their mathematically expressible value.

[beecee]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

This is similar to why we can't reach absolute zero of 'temperature', which is when incidentally an ideal gas has zero volume ie occupies zero space so exists as space time without space for as long as the gas is at absolute zero.

Are you saying at absolute zero, a gas becomes a solid? Then I agree. So some space is still occupied?

Now what follows does not compute with me studiot, and I certainly need some clarification. I am of the opinion, and have learnt over the years that space and time cannot exist [as we know them] without one another. They both [as we know them] evolved together at t+10-45 seconds. Please let me die a happy man and show me that makes sense!! 😉  

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Mathematically I can extend the lines indefinitely in both directions and there is no mathematical reason that they must coincide.

 

[studiot]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

This is similar to why we can't reach absolute zero of 'temperature', which is when incidentally an ideal gas has zero volume ie occupies zero space so exists as space time without space for as long as the gas is at absolute zero.

 

6 hours ago, Conscious Energy said:

I dont really understand what you mean with this. There is a physical barrier, that we can not reach absolute 0 as you will never be able to observe and measure in space(time) without every energy and matter in it. As soon you have an electron in the system its temp is not absolute 0.

 

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you saying at absolute zero, a gas becomes a solid? Then I agree. So some space is still occupied?

I owe you both an apology for my poorly drafted wording that I agree is totally confusing.

Here is a better version.

 

A simpler example than extrapolating back in time is to consider Charles Law.

The volume of an ideal gas is directly proportional to its absolute temperature.

V = aT where a is the constant of proportionality that depends upon the units employed for V and T.

Therefore putting T = 0 into this equation yields V = 0

Therefore the volume of an ideal gas is zero at absolute zero.

Now this is a suprising and disturbing result which shows the danger of extrapolating.

Note also that I said an ideal gas. Real world gases do not obey this law at some low enough temperature, although for some gases, such as the ones Charles studied, it is pretty good at normal temperatures.

Cosmology and cosmological equations are in the same state Physics was in the 18th century, or even less developed.

I hope this helps.

 

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

I owe you both an apology for my poorly drafted wording that I agree is totally confusing.

I hope this helps.

I can now die a happy man!😉