The Nature of Time

[geordief]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

In the case of muons - nothing, because they are elementary particles without any “internal” mechanisms

If a muon is modeled** as a perturbation  in its field,does this perturbation  have a frequency?

Could that (if it exists and is as I dimly imagine it) be considered as a kind of internal mechanism even it is unchanging ?

(A bit like the  standing waves or seiches presently being discussed over the Great Lakes in Canada)

 

** in QFT

Edited December 23, 2022 by geordief

[swansont]

15 hours ago, geordief said:

 

But it is only noticeable/quantifiable under those circumstances**  isn't it?(even though it does occur at any relative  speed or in the slightest gravitational  field)

 

**ie at relative speeds and in very strong gravitational  fields,

It’s been observed in earth’s gravitational field at distances on the order of a cm, and speeds of order a meter per second. You just need a good enough clock.

16 minutes ago, geordief said:

If a muon is modeled** as a perturbation  in its field,does this perturbation  have a frequency?

There was a proposal that because there is rest mass, there is an associated frequency, since E=mc^2 and E=hf

But AFAIK this was not widely accepted as being meaningful 

[Genady]

3 hours ago, geordief said:

Ah,now I think I understand Markus' point

From the muon's perspective  no time passes ?

The decay  is spontaneous  and randomly timed from an observer's frame?

 

To the contrary, from the muon's perspective time passes from its "birth" until its "death". Its mean lifetime is about 2.2x10^-6s in the muon's frame.

[Genady]

The clocks that measure time without measuring a movement which have been considered so far:

1. A mean lifetime of decay of an unstable elementary particle.

2. A mean time of flipping of electron spin in a magnetic field.

Here I propose another:

3. Change over time in a wavelength of photons of the CMB.

[Markus Hanke]

15 hours ago, DanMP said:

Gravity does exist regardless on how we define or understand time.

My post referred to gravity as we experience it (in the real world around us). Yes, you would also have some version of gravity in a universe without the GR concept of time (see my last post), but it would be very different from what we actually see in our universe.

Edited December 24, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[addison]

• On 12/23/2022 at 12:42 PM, Genady said:

  The clocks that measure time without measuring a movement which have been considered so far:
  1. A mean lifetime of decay of an unstable elementary particle.
  2. A mean time of flipping of electron spin in a magnetic field.
  Here I propose another:
  3. Change over time in a wavelength of photons of the CMB.

  On 12/27/2022 Addison said:

  Sorry about entering my reply inside of the quote. I couldn't figure out how to enter it outside of the quote area.

  How would one of these clocks work? Would they have a face and would the numbers on the face change? I noticed that all of these clocks are related to subatomic particles and phenomena. Are there any of these types of clocks that are related to GR? If so, they would be more pertinent to my argument.

[Genady]

43 minutes ago, addison said:

How would one of these clocks work? Would they have a face and would the numbers on the face change?

How is this information conveyed to human senses? I don't know. Perhaps, various ways can be designed. It seems rather a question of our perception than a question of a nature of time. Some macroscopic instrument "readable" by us is needed. Perhaps, some visual representations on a screen. But might be something ticking...

These, 1, 2, 3 above, are examples of changes which are not movements, but which have time duration. 

43 minutes ago, addison said:

Are there any of these types of clocks that are related to GR?

Yes, number 3. 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Genady

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

How is this information conveyed to human senses? I don't know. Perhaps, various ways can be designed.

The entire life cycle (from creation to decay) of elementary particles such as the muon can be visually observed in cloud chambers. You could also do something similar with flipping of spin directions, if one was to combine a cloud chamber with some suitable version of a Stern-Gerlach setup. 

2 hours ago, addison said:

Are there any of these types of clocks that are related to GR?

The very existence of gravitational radiation depends on the reality of time (in the GR sense), so any type of gravitational wave detector is in effect an instrument that demonstrates the existence of “time” in a rather direct way. If you want to make things absolutely airtight you can combine gravitational radiation with movement-less clocks - so you could for example have a spatially extended sample of many decaying elementary particles, and observe the local variations in mean lifetimes of these as they are exposed to a gravitational radiation field. The effect would be exceedingly small, and way outside of what we can detect with current technology, but you get the general idea - not only will the mean lifetimes be effected even though these particles lack internal mechanisms, but all kinds of particles/clocks will be effected exactly equally, irrespective of their kind and internal make-up (if any). This demonstrates rather neatly that time exists independent of specific mechanisms.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, addison said:

Are there any of these types of clocks that are related to GR?

All clocks are related to GR; they will all be subject to time dilation. However, they might not have the precision to measure the effect.
 

(note that the second description - the spin flip - is how many atomic clocks work)

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, DanMP said:

With my theory I explained them fairly easy. 

!

Moderator Note

We aren’t discussing your theory here; it’s not your thread.

 

[DanMP]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

We aren’t discussing your theory here; it’s not your thread.

 

I didn't entered in details regarding my theories and I won't (not even offer links), in order to respect the rules.

[addison]

The clocks that measure time without measuring a movement which have been considered so far:

The clocks that measure time without measuring a movement which have been considered so far:

Every time I click on "Reply to this topic" I end up in a quote box like this one. Can anyone explain how I can get my reply text outside of the quote box like all of the other replies please.

Edited December 28, 2022 by addison
Trying to understand the proper way to reply.

[swansont]

Just now, addison said:

Every time I click on "Reply to this topic" I end up in a quote box like this one. Can anyone explain how I can get my reply text outside of the quote box like all of the other replies please.

The cursor should show up outside the box. If it’s inside, at the end of the text, hit return once or twice. 

[addison]

15 minutes ago, addison said:

The clocks that measure time without measuring a movement which have been considered so far:

Is it possible to delete a post?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, addison said:

Every time I click on "Reply to this topic" I end up in a quote box like this one. Can anyone explain how I can get my reply text outside of the quote box like all of the other replies please.

!

Moderator Note

Instead of "Reply to this topic", I clicked "Quote" under this post of yours, so the software repeats what you said. It left room outside the quote for this reply.

Then I went into your quote and removed the first two sentences, since I'm just replying to the above paragraph. Last, I hit "Submit Reply".

 

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I clicked "Quote" under this post of yours, so the software repeats what you said. It left room outside the quote for this reply.

Then I went into your quote and removed the first two sentences, since I'm just replying to the above paragraph. Last, I hit "Submit Reply".

There is a shorter way to reply to only a part of a post. Select the part, a floating text appears offering to quote the selection (see below), click on it, the rest is the same minus a need to remove anything.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Block universe discussion has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128450-time-and-relativity-split-from-the-nature-of-time/

 

 

[addison]

On 12/23/2022 at 9:42 AM, Genady said:

The clocks that measure time without measuring a movement which have been considered so far:

If a clock measures time then time must be something real since that's the way a measure works namely comparing an agreed amount of the real parameter measured with the parameter to be measured. A clock does not measure time a clock is time. This looks like a case of mistaking the map for the terrane mapped.

An examination of a clock reveals that a clock is an agreed upon amount of movement used to measure movement in the world. 

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, addison said:

A clock does not measure time a clock is time.

A ruler does not measure distance, a ruler is distance?

A scale does not measure weight, a scale is weight?

A thermometer does not measure temperature, a thermometer is temperature?

A depth gage does not measure depth, a depth gage is depth?

A pressure gage does not measure pressure, a pressure gage is pressure?

A speedometer does not measure speed, a speedometer is speed?

Etc.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

A ruler does not measure distance, a ruler is distance?

Could one not argue that a ruler is an example of distance, since it is an intrinsic property within all macro objects, we just call it 'length' when it pertains to that case? The change from distance to length is a semantic shift to change   focus, but nothing objectively changes.

Edited December 30, 2022 by StringJunky

[Lorentz Jr]

31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Could one not argue that a ruler is an example of distance

A ruler is an example of a stick with little lines and numbers etched into it. If one can argue that a ruler is an example of distance, I would argue that angels can dance on the head of a pin. I would also argue that rulers may not even measure distance properly when they're length contracted, but I certainly wouldn't argue that physical objects are identical to whatever physical quantities they possess and/or measure, because objects are just objects, not properties.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

A ruler is an example of a stick with little lines and numbers etched into it. If one can argue that a ruler is an example of distance, I would argue that angels can dance on the head of a pin. I would also argue that rulers may not even measure distance properly when they're length contracted, but I certainly wouldn't argue that physical objects are identical to whatever physical quantities they possess and/or measure, because objects are just objects, not properties.

 I think your angel comparison is inappropriate because I supported it, albeit obviously not to your satisfaction

[swansont]

9 hours ago, addison said:

If a clock measures time then time must be something real since that's the way a measure works namely comparing an agreed amount of the real parameter measured with the parameter to be measured. A clock does not measure time a clock is time. This looks like a case of mistaking the map for the terrane mapped.

An examination of a clock reveals that a clock is an agreed upon amount of movement used to measure movement in the world. 

You’ve been given examples of clocks that have no movement, or are not based on movement (i.e. the movement is incidentall)

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Could one not argue that a ruler is an example of distance, since it is an intrinsic property within all macro objects, we just call it 'length' when it pertains to that case? The change from distance to length is a semantic shift to change   focus, but nothing objectively changes.

If distance is a property of a thing, then it can't be the thing itself, can it? Like kinetic energy is a property of a moving object, but not the actual object. 

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If distance is a property of a thing, then it can't be the thing itself, can it? Like kinetic energy is a property of a moving object, but not the actual object. 

I was just throwing it out there... it looked ok yesterday  Of course it is.