Why is it so hard to explain time? (What is time?)

[chron44]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is what defines if it belongs to this forum. So, your stuff can be "research" somewhere else, but it is spam here.

 

Believing in something is stronger than plain words. I believe in this quest in a true physical aspect. And I repeat: I am not a spammer.

Surely I know that time is measured by clocks. And that length is measured by such references. Still physics has to know what we measure, calculate and present in a true physical manner. Academic knowledge and standards - also - acknowledge the lack of true understanding of time and space.

Observe, again, I know what time and length is in a pure academic sense.

If ppl having problems in my quest, let it be then. Don't answer me then.

 

[AIkonoklazt]

what's wrong with time being "the 4th dimension"?

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Don't answer me then.

Not answering is not enough. I use filters provided by the site's software to avoid seeing such bs on my screen. The site's organization provides clear separation of different forums. By violating this separation, you piss in my yard.

[chron44]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

what's wrong with time being "the 4th dimension"?

 

The GR, SR and QM math makes it true. Still, your issue is relevant. These fields of physics are purely governed from corresponding formulas and math, which lately have been stuck - because of the lack of understanding or misconception of space and time. Maybe we have the stuck reason exactly here.

Time is in its pure entity-form not coherent with space in its true form. Space and time are not essentially not the same.

Though the involved math separate on these basic two entities. Ppl doesn't.

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, chron44 said:

 

The GR, SR and QM math makes it true. Still, your issue is relevant. These fields of physics are purely governed from corresponding formulas and math, which lately have been stuck - because of the lack of understanding or misconception of space and time. Maybe we have the stuck reason exactly here.

Time is in its pure entity-form not coherent with space in its true form. Space and time are not essentially not the same.

Though the involved math separate on these basic two entities. Ppl doesn't.

.......I don't get how that's describing what's wrong with time simply being the 4th dimension.

The explanation is just "it's the 4th dimension."

[chron44]

4 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

.......I don't get how that's describing what's wrong with time simply being the 4th dimension.

The explanation is just "it's the 4th dimension."

 

This is a difficult issue, I have to wait some "time" for trying to respond.

Generally time and space are basically different entities. So much I can say.

On the contrary the light cone is a good, but hard, view of that the relevant mathematics sees time for the 4th dimension.

[KJW]

46 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Surely I know that time is measured by clocks.

But saying that time is what is measured by clocks is not simply saying that time is measured by clocks. It is saying that is what time is. Time is a physical quantity and so must have a physical definition if it is to be meaningful.

 

 

46 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Still physics has to know what we measure, calculate and present in a true physical manner.

The problem with what you are asking is whether or not the answer you seek is truly meaningful.

 

[AIkonoklazt]

15 minutes ago, chron44 said:

 

This is a difficult issue, I have to wait some "time" for trying to respond.

Generally time and space are basically different entities. So much I can say.

On the contrary the light cone is a good, but hard, view of that the relevant mathematics sees time for the 4th dimension.

I also don't get what's wrong with unitary spacetime. Well, length is a "different entity" than width and height, also... They're different vectors, and time is just another vector added on top.

[KJW]

25 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Generally time and space are basically different entities.

Time and space are different components of the one notion that we call "spacetime". If two observers are in motion relative to each other, then what is purely time to one observer is a combination of space and time to the other observer. Relativity provides geometry to spacetime.

 

Edited January 8 by KJW

[Boltzmannbrain]

We know a lot of properties that time has.  Importantly, we can use this knowledge to make almost any prediction that we need.  In this sense, it really don't think time is very mysterious.

And I think one thing that seems mysterious to people, is that we can't see into the past or future like we can with space (it is spacetime, but I will call it space to be less confusing).  But general relativity came along and showed us a geometry of spacetime that is very accurate.  In this geometry, the photons have such angles that only carry information from space, not time.  It is kind of like being partially blind, and you can only see in certain directions.  

However, I think that there is a very big mystery to be solved about time.  It is a dimension that we are automatically travelling through at the speed of light instead of having various speeds in the spatial directions.  How is this happening?  

Edited January 8 by Boltzmannbrain

[KJW]

16 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I also don't get what's wrong with unitary spacetime. Well, length is a "different entity" than width and height, also... They're different vectors, and time is just another vector added on top.

Space and time are distinct in that the metric of spacetime has oppositely signed coefficients for the space and time components. The existence of an invariant speed of light (though not necessarily light itself) is a manifestation of this distinction.

 

Edited January 8 by KJW

[chron44]

38 minutes ago, KJW said:

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Still physics has to know what we measure, calculate and present in a true physical manner.

The problem with what you are asking is whether or not the answer you seek is truly meaningful.

 

If my quest not was meaningful - it would be metaphysics.

If my quest is meaningful - it is physics.

Because physics is meaningful.

And the metaphysics is merely my scaffold.

Though all primer physics start with the scaffold.

/chron44

 

[KJW]

1 hour ago, KJW said:

Space and time are distinct in that the metric of spacetime has oppositely signed coefficients for the space and time components. The existence of an invariant speed of light (though not necessarily light itself) is a manifestation of this distinction.

Another important consideration is that there are three space dimensions and one time dimension. If instead there were two space dimensions and two time dimensions, as indicated by the signs of the metric coefficients, then although space and time would still be distinct, they would be indistinguishable because the sign of a metric coefficient does not itself indicate whether the component is a space or time component. This would manifest itself in the solution of the wave equation.

 

 

40 minutes ago, chron44 said:

1 hour ago, KJW said:

The problem with what you are asking is whether or not the answer you seek is truly meaningful.

If my quest not was meaningful - it would be metaphysics.

If my quest is meaningful - it is physics.

Because physics is meaningful.

In that case, time is what is measured by clocks. Can any other statement of what time is be truly meaningful?

 

 

Edited January 8 by KJW

[chron44]

 

2 hours ago, KJW said:

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

4 hours ago, KJW said:

The problem with what you are asking is whether or not the answer you seek is truly meaningful.

If my quest not was meaningful - it would be metaphysics.

If my quest is meaningful - it is physics.

Because physics is meaningful.

In that case, time is what is measured by clocks. Can any other statement of what time is be truly meaningful?

 

Some relevant aspects of time and length:

Can time be applied on energy? No. Can time be applied on mass? Yes. How come that these are the cases? When the mass equivalence stated via E=mc^2 is current. -Mass is energy, and energy is mass. -Still not at the same "time". There is a transition period and a physical distinction between any specific amount of the mass or energy states. Either being mass or either energy. This is not like quantum physics with its duality aspect. Energy or mass are a governed by transition and distinction. Two high energy gamma-ray photons colliding is a typical example here. Between the annihilating processes involved there exists energy states but no mass. And when masses being expressed no energy is at hand. (E=mc^2 conversions takes time.)

So, .. continuing.. if ppl think that this is correct in a general manner..

Think of a sphere with mass (kg) in empty space (zero gravity) rotating at a fixed pace its own axis, its center not moving out of its x, y, z frame but all time rotating keeping its x, y and z position. Still any specific point on its "equator" is though changing position by some length frame (m) and within some time frame (s) - depending on the specific energy originally applied. So it is keeping a steady RPM in empty space.

Then, if no input- (impulse) energy ever was applied, no rotation would be at hand. And when energy (impulse) is applied a fixed rotation occur. This means that time (s) and length (m) only is achieved by energy. Impulse creates a fixed RPM situation. And steady energy supply gives an accelerating RPM situation.

Time and length therefore needs energy applied on any mass whatsoever for to be manifested. If energy is applied (added) to other energy no time or length are manifested. In this manner time and length are connected and in absolute need of energy. Observe that also no length is manifested without energy. I.e. E=mc^2, the energy equivalence function, gives mass, gives matter, gives length dimensions at this matter or mass. Also the radius (m) at the sphere is manifested from energy.

There is more about this general reasoning, still I rest with this respond.

This is partly my primer time and length physics scaffold.

So, is the general "message" here physics or metaphysics?

 

[chron44]

 

For short: Time is duration changes in matter, caused by the impact of energy.

And if these durations have a fixed or very steady pace - it's a clock of some sort.

"Time is a what a clock measures", - doesn't give the total physics view or understanding.

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

Can time be applied on energy? No.

Oh yes, there is a fundamental connection between these, given by Noether’s theorem - translation invariance in time corresponds to a conserved quantity, which is precisely the energy-momentum tensor. Without time, there would be no meaningful notion of energy-momentum.

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

Either being mass or either energy.

This is wrong - it’s called mass-energy equivalence, because there’s no distinction between them; mass is just a specific form of energy, they are equivalent to one another.

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

This means that time (s) and length (m) only is achieved by energy.

It’s the other way around - energy-momentum arises (as a meaningful concept) from the continuous symmetries of this spacetime, in this case time-translation invariance and rotational invariance, via Noether’s theorem.

[KJW]

6 hours ago, chron44 said:

"Time is a what a clock measures", - doesn't give the total physics view or understanding.

I should point out that I am considering what time is to be distinct from what time does, although it is understandable if people conflate these two notions.

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, chron44 said:

 

For short: Time is duration changes in matter, caused by the impact of energy

time doesn’t pass without changes in matter? No.

 

8 hours ago, chron44 said:

 

"Time is a what a clock measures", - doesn't give the total physics view or understanding.

Definitions or descriptions generally don’t. You have to study to gain understanding of physics 

[Genady]

10 hours ago, chron44 said:

So, is the general "message" here physics or metaphysics?

Neither. It is just nonsense.

[chron44]

2 hours ago, KJW said:

9 hours ago, chron44 said:

"Time is a what a clock measures", - doesn't give the total physics view or understanding.

I should point out that I am considering what time is to be distinct from what time does, although it is understandable if people conflate these two notions.

 

Yes, it's most or very easy to "conflate" the aspects of what time is and what time does.. Obviously, maybe I am doing so. (I won't say I regret my stand of point, still I'm taking in what other ppl here are telling..) (I'm reading and trying to comprehend.)

 

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

9 hours ago, chron44 said:

For short: Time is duration changes in matter, caused by the impact of energy

time doesn’t pass without changes in matter? No.

In an academic and very well educated stad of point the reason for the here assembled rejection of my "ideas" or most of what I was "expressing" in my recent longer post should then, in summary, be that the "spacetime" itself is manifesting "energy" according to modern physics.

 

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

11 hours ago, chron44 said:

Can time be applied on energy? No.

Oh yes, there is a fundamental connection between these, given by Noether’s theorem - translation invariance in time corresponds to a conserved quantity, which is precisely the energy-momentum tensor. Without time, there would be no meaningful notion of energy-momentum.

 In this definitive rejection of this statement I see that, the photon is a fair example of that time is applied on energy. Pure energy at c speed (m/s).

I will continue in the studying of physics.

 

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, chron44 said:

In an academic and very well educated stad of point the reason for the here assembled rejection of my "ideas" or most of what I was "expressing" in my recent longer post should then, in summary, be that the "spacetime" itself is manifesting "energy" according to modern physics.

I’m not sure what the connection is to the point under discussion 

17 minutes ago, chron44 said:

 

 In this definitive rejection of this statement I see that, the photon is a fair example of that time is applied on energy. Pure energy at c speed (m/s).

I will continue in the studying of physics.

 

A photon is not “pure energy” (it has linear momentum and spin)

[chron44]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

34 minutes ago, chron44 said:

 In this definitive rejection of this statement I see that, the photon is a fair example of that time is applied on energy. Pure energy at c speed (m/s).

I will continue in the studying of physics.

 

A photon is not “pure energy” (it has linear momentum and spin)

 

Well, at least, doesn't the photon show, if not actually being "pure" energy, that time is applicable on energy?

BTW, is there any example of "pure" energy in physics at all? Electromagnetic energy has a vector, a direction, though no spin or momentum. Does this vector then include time? Maybe this form of energy can be considered to the most "pure" in physics.

[exchemist]

13 minutes ago, chron44 said:

 

Well, at least, doesn't the photon show, if not actually being "pure" energy, that time is applicable on energy?

BTW, is there any example of "pure" energy in physics at all? Electromagnetic energy has a vector, a direction, though no spin or momentum. Does this vector then include time? Maybe this form of energy can be considered to the most "pure" in physics.

No. “Pure” energy is Star Trek, not physics. Energy is a property of a physical system. You can’t have “pure” energy any more than you can have “pure” velocity. It’s a meaningless idea.

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, chron44 said:

 

Well, at least, doesn't the photon show, if not actually being "pure" energy, that time is applicable on energy?

I don’t know what “time is applicable on energy” means

23 minutes ago, chron44 said:

BTW, is there any example of "pure" energy in physics at all? Electromagnetic energy has a vector, a direction, though no spin or momentum. Does this vector then include time? Maybe this form of energy can be considered to the most "pure" in physics.

Energy is a property, not a thing

[chron44]

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

17 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Well, at least, doesn't the photon show, if not actually being "pure" energy, that time is applicable on energy?

BTW, is there any example of "pure" energy in physics at all? Electromagnetic energy has a vector, a direction, though no spin or momentum. Does this vector then include time? Maybe this form of energy can be considered to the most "pure" in physics.

No. “Pure” energy is Star Trek, not physics. Energy is a property of a physical system. You can’t have “pure” energy any more than you can have “pure” velocity. It’s a meaningless idea.

 

Yeah, right.. hmm..

Just google'd and chat bot'ed.. The electromagnetic field include time as an independent parameter, depending which theory one uses. -And the photon, which naturally include time, obviously are quanta of this field.