Time : what it really is

[Bright]

Time is continuously moving forward.  I am sorry if I was unclear.  Time effects change in everything as is evident when we look back at a photo of ourselves from just a few years ago.  The only way for time to stop would be to reach absolute zero.  Agree?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, SumeruRay said:

I now want to change the language of the title to: 'Time : what it actually is' Also I want to say, Time has no existence in the form of matter and energy.

Was anyone claiming that it did?

Note that length also has no existence in the form of matter and energy

1 hour ago, SumeruRay said:

 

We measure Time by the distance traveled round by the hands of the clock

I used to build clocks, and none of them worked that way. None of them had hands.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, SumeruRay said:

@MigL and everyone participating in this discussion 

 

 

I now realize that my linguistic errors in this article have caused confusion and misunderstanding. This is because the word 'real' is used in different places in different senses. There is nothing wrong with my theory.

 

I now want to change the language of the title to: 'Time : what it actually is' Also I want to say, Time has no existence in the form of matter and energy.

 

When a person walks from point 'A' to point 'B' at a place, that person travels a certain distance. In one (at the same time) the person spends some Time more or less based on his/her walking speed. Our concept of 'time' arises from the regular and continuous rotation of the earth or from the regular and continuous rotation of the clock.

 

We measure Time by the distance traveled round by the hands of the clock when the aforementioned person reaches from point A to point B. Our perception of time is also shaped by the changes we observe in weather and nature as a result of the Earth's regular rotation relative to the Sun.

 

'Time' is actually the straight line distance between any two actions or events. Time has no existence in the form of matter and energy. 

 

We measure Time by the distance traveled round by the hands of the clock when the aforementioned person reaches from point A to point B. Our perception of time is also shaped by the changes we observe in weather and nature as a result of the Earth's regular rotation relative to the Sun.

 

Here I am not referring to 'Time' as spatial distance. I mean, Time is an invisible distance between one action or event and another action or event. We can understand what it is by looking at the hands of a traveling clock that has reached a certain distance.

 

 Here is my equation:

 

T = ΔE × (τ × Δψ)

 

Where:

 

- T = Time (invisible distance between events)

- ΔE = Event distance (the "gap" between two events)

- τ = Temporal resolution (related to the clock's ticking rate)

- Δψ = Change in clock state (hands moving between positions)

 

This equation aims to capture the theory that 'Time' is an invisible distance between events, measured by the clock's progression (Δψ) and our perception of that progression (τ).

 

Hopefully it won't be difficult to understand now. thank you

 

 

What would be the type of units in which E is measured? Units of length? Or what?

[Eise]

17 hours ago, joigus said:

20 hours ago, MigL said:

If I may Joigus ...
"another 'would be philosopher' who has no clue what Philosophy is"

is that better Eise ?

You read my mind. I'm not one of those people who can dash off a quick essay over the cellular. I remember having thought of "wannabe philosopher". Quotation marks would have done the job. And your expression certainly does it. 

The truth is we get a lot of this. People who think they can do philosophy, and by means of their philosophy of sorts, clinch the case of the most difficult (and long-standing) scientific problems: What is time? Did the universe have a beginning?, etc. The truth being they don't even get started doing science. They do very poor philosophy too.

Yep. There are several problems to call OP's musings 'philosophy'. But the main problem is that one tries to solve an empirical question by pure logical means. And thereby using 'logical' where in fact it means 'according to my intuition'.

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. 

Recently I saw a new one:

What kind of vehicle has four wheels and flies?

Spoiler

A garbage truck.

 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

If time passed, yet absolutely nothing moved, there’d be no change.

What moves in a muon, when it decays? (I think it was Swansont that one gave this as an example that we should talk about 'change', not 'movement'. Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement.

[joigus]

10 hours ago, Bright said:

Time, a treasure we always want more of, but will never have enough of.

Depends. Some time I could do without.

Time has a filling, and that's what's of the essence. 

[geordief]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Yep. There are several problems to call OP's musings 'philosophy'. But the main problem is that one tries to solve an empirical question by pure logical means. And thereby using 'logical' where in fact it means 'according to my intuition'.

Recently I saw a new one:

What kind of vehicle has four wheels and flies?

  Reveal hidden contents

A garbage truck.

 

What moves in a muon, when it decays? (I think it was Swansont that one gave this as an example that we should talk about 'change', not 'movement'. Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement.

So ,no change = no "time"?

 

Time is a measure of change in a system ,and (classsically but not necessarily at a more fundamental level)  spatial distance another measure of that change...

 

Is "movement" a  measure of a change in relative spatial locations ?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

What moves in a muon, when it decays? (I think it was Swansont that one gave this as an example that we should talk about 'change', not 'movement'. Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement.

Agreed. I was reaching more for poetry than precision when using the posters own words to demonstrate the paucity of their point, and acknowledge this welcome correction from you

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

What moves in a muon, when it decays? (I think it was Swansont that one gave this as an example that we should talk about 'change', not 'movement'. Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement

It’s also true that in atomic clocks, less movement leads to better precision. The best kinds of clock try to make the atoms or ions motionless. Even though you can’t remove the movement, time would still pass if you could, since that’s not the source.

And one has to be careful saying that change is the source, since correlation is not causation.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement.

Have you thought about symmetry ?

 

If I take a hexagon and rotate it 60^o about its centre, what change has occurred ?

[geordief]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Have you thought about symmetry ?

 

If I take a hexagon and rotate it 60^o about its centre, what change has occurred ?

Arthritis of the axle?

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Eise said:

Yep. There are several problems to call OP's musings 'philosophy'. But the main problem is that one tries to solve an empirical question by pure logical means. And thereby using 'logical' where in fact it means 'according to my intuition'.

Recently I saw a new one:

What kind of vehicle has four wheels and flies?

  Reveal hidden contents

A garbage truck.

 

What moves in a muon, when it decays? (I think it was Swansont that one gave this as an example that we should talk about 'change', not 'movement'. Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement.

What has 100 legs and flies?
 

Spoiler

50 pairs of trousers.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Have you thought about symmetry ?

 

If I take a hexagon and rotate it 60^o about its centre, what change has occurred ?

Not seeing the change doesn’t mean nothing has changed. The faces have been rotated 60 degrees

Anyway, this is splitting hairs. Change isn’t time, change does not cause time. The muon argument is a rebuttal to the claim that time is motion.

[geordief]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

ecently I saw a new one:

What kind of vehicle has four wheels and flies

I cheated  with your spoiler but ,quite honestly my reply was going to be "a rubbish cart . eg the one I used to pick up and get  on behind  down the Cowley Road -think it was an 8o clock start.

Didn't imagine it wss the right answer.

(technically 5 wheels if you count the steering wheel)

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, geordief said:

I cheated  with your spoiler but ,quite honestly my reply was going to be "a rubbish cart . eg the one I used to pick up and get  on behind  down the Cowley Road -think it was an 8o clock start.

Didn't imagine it wss the right answer.

(technically 5 wheels if you count the steering wheel)

No mine was the 100 legs and flies one. 

But seriously, did you hitch a lift on a dustcart down the Cowley Rd, in Oxford? Or moonlight from uni as a dustman? When was that?

Sounds as if a 4 Yorkshiremen sketch could be coming on...............  

Come to think of it, there were Geordies around reading chemistry at my college. From Newcastle Grammar. 

Edited July 2 by exchemist

[geordief]

29 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No mine was the 100 legs and flies one. 

But seriously, did you hitch a lift on a dustcart down the Cowley Rd, in Oxford? Or moonlight from uni as a dustman? When was that?

Sounds as if a 4 Yorkshiremen sketch could be coming on...............  

Come to think of it, there were Geordies around reading chemistry at my college. From Newcastle Grammar. 

I did work as a dustman for a while.I can't remember if it was between years (in the  summer) or whether it was after I had left Exeter.

I also worked on the new road being built  at the time nearby where our duties were laid out as "keep moving around  to look as if you are working"

Our gang master received a percentage of our wages and the more he took on the more his cut was (he took his holidays in America.)

They picked us up each morning on the town side of the Magdalen(sp?) Bridge .A bit like "The Lump"-you either got work or you went home.

 

I did have a friend  then doing chemistry ( a college near the  big Police Station -and Railway station I think-St Peter's?)  .He was from Oldham but I lost touch

Edit What happened to the "a garbage truck" answer in the spoiler. Surely I didn't imagine that ? Creepy...

Edited July 2 by geordief

[Eise]

On 7/2/2024 at 2:51 PM, geordief said:

So ,no change = no "time"?

Well, 'no change' is an empirically impossible situation.

The best we can do is define 'standard changers', aka 'clocks'. Then we can compare durations of  processes with the number of 'ticks' of our standard changer. If we agree on such a standard changer (like an atomic clock), and on the scale of the units we use (so many ticks are 1 second), we can define a kind of 'absolute time'. 'Absolute' in the sense that we know that 1 second for one observer, is also 1 second for another one, assuming the clocks do not move relative to each other. 

In special relativity, we notice that all clocks in a system that is moving relative to me slow down: the atomic clock, the quartz clock, grandpa's pendulum clock, etc. Then we can justified say, that time has slowed down in in the frame that is moving relative to me.

On 7/2/2024 at 2:51 PM, geordief said:

Is "movement" a  measure of a change in relative spatial locations ?

'Movement' is just another change that can occur, as you say, a change in spatial location. I would not necessarily call it a measure, for a measure of time a reliable extremely fast periodical change is the best way to attach a time scale to it, and so can become a measure.

[StringJunky]

swansonT once mentioned about nuclear decay, where nothing happens then it decays. Time must have elapsed to go from one state to the next, regardless of how long it takes and when...iirc.

Time is a continuum, smooth, so scientists have to use a periodic reference to count it. In that sense, I think it would be safe to say "In order for us to count time we need something that periodically changes, but it is not a prerequisite for time to exist" A periodic process is subject to time, but is not time itself.

Edited July 4 by StringJunky

[geordief]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, 'no change' is an empirically impossible situation.

In the same way that "no time" is also empirically impossible?

 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

swansonT once mentioned about nuclear decay, where nothing happens then it decays. Time must have elapsed to go from one state to the next, regardless of how long it takes and when...iirc.

Time is a continuum, smooth, so scientists have to use a periodic reference to count it. In that sense, I think it would be safe to say "In order for us to count time we need something that periodically changes, but it is not a prerequisite for time to exist" A periodic process is subject to time, but is not time itself.

Is it possible for  the rate of nuclear decay to be any way affected by external  circumstances?

For example can  something decay instantly so there is nothing left as soon as you take a second look?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

In the same way that "no time" is also empirically impossible?

 

Is it possible for  the rate of nuclear decay to be any way affected by external  circumstances?

For example can  something decay instantly so there is nothing left as soon as you take a second look?

swansonT will more ably answer that.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, geordief said:

Is it possible for  the rate of nuclear decay to be any way affected by external  circumstances?

Electron capture is slightly affected by pressure. Otherwise no. (There have been a few anomalous results showing some temperature effects but they aren’t repeatable)

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, geordief said:

 

For example can  something decay instantly so there is nothing left as soon as you take a second look?

Some decay rates example Higgs boson at 10^(-22) seconds you don't really have time for a second look...though it's never instant resonant particles decay extremely fast to the point of second look isn't fast enough. Lol

[geordief]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Some decay rates example Higgs boson at 10^(-22) seconds you don't really have time for a second look...though it's never instant resonant particles decay extremely fast to the point of second look isn't fast enough. Lol

As I have heard ,the Higgs boson is one of ,if not the largest  of the particles(around the size of a proton I think I heard).

You say that it decays in around 10^(-22) seconds.

Does it decay into smaller constituent parts and does this happen "all in one go" or does it decay one step at a time?

 

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, geordief said:

As I have heard ,the Higgs boson is one of ,if not the largest  of the particles(around the size of a proton I think I heard).

I’d be interested to know where you heatd that. I’d be surprised if there was a physical size associated with it.

21 minutes ago, geordief said:

You say that it decays in around 10^(-22) seconds.

Does it decay into smaller constituent parts and does this happen "all in one go" or does it decay one step at a time?

It’s not a composite particle, so there are no constituent parts. It can’t decay in steps; once it decays it’s not a Higgs anymore. But the decay products could also be unstable.

[geordief]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’d be interested to know where you heatd that. I’d be surprised if there was a physical size associated with it.

I am sorry I don't think I can remember that (except that it would have been over the past month or so )

Also not sure if I read it or   if I heard it on the radio or tv.

I think I very probably misheard  and that they were very likely  saying that it was more massive  than a proton.

Now that you have queried me I have looked it up and have now read that "physical size" doesn't really apply to the Higgs Boson.

Edited July 4 by geordief

[swansont]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

I think I very probably misheard  and that they were very likely  saying that it was more massive  than a proton.

Likely, and some descriptions might be a little sloppy and use “bigger” to refer to the energy (or mass), which is ~125 GeV (GeV/c^2) as opposed to a proton, which is slightly less than 1 GeV