is time real

[swansont]

Thief here...

I reviewed some articles on entropy.

Entropy appears to be another calculation technique....

similar to time.

 

Yes of course, the small anomalies of our universe must be accounted for.

That's why the second law of thermodynamics was written....

to account for the leftovers from the first law.

 

Time and entropy are calculations.

 

If time were of substance, could you not examine the substance and be sure the quantity of time within it?

If distance must be tweaked to make the equation work...

what are we doing?

 

 

Most of physics consists of calculations … of quantities that we find useful. They do not fall into the categories of force or substance. That is a false dichotomy, which I what I was trying to point out. Time isn't a substance, but needs not be one to be real. "Real" encompasses more than substances and forces.

 

But if you hadn't heard of something as basic as entropy before, then I fear there isn't much of a foundation for useful discussion here. If you want to speculate on the nature of time, sans physics, please do so in the speculations forum.

[NowThatWeKnow]

Thief here...

Then location of observation changes the time value.

 

No. You can not see in real time. Consider the speed of light and when it will reach your eyes.

[north]

OK, watching teh same counter, sorry I misread what you were saying. That makes matters significantly harder, and you'd need to clarify the situation further, as it looks like a bit of frame mixing is going on.

 

May I suggest we take a step back from GR and just concentrate on SR.

 

Consider 2 frames,

 

Frame A is at rest and contains a clock (CA) and an atomic oscillator (OA).

 

Frame B is moving with velocity v (v>0.9c) relative to A and contains a clock (CB) and an atomic oscillator (OB).

 

Using CA frame A counts x oscillations on OA, and y oscillations on OB.

 

Using CB frame B counts x oscillations on OB, and y oscillations on OA.

 

Once you start moving between frames you need to be careful as accelerations will also have some relativistic effect...

 

Klaynos

 

while I understand your points

 

there are still 3 basic things about time

 

1) time is based on the movement of objects

 

2) the rate of time is based on the frame of which the object is in ( fast , slow ) and the affects thereof

 

3) that no matter how you slice it , oscillations , or just plain movement , the essence of time is still fundamentally based on the objects movement characteristics caused by interaction with other objects and/or internal characteristics

[Klaynos]

Klaynos

 

while I understand your points

 

there are still 3 basic things about time

 

1) time is based on the movement of objects

 

2) the rate of time is based on the frame of which the object is in ( fast , slow ) and the affects thereof

 

3) that no matter how you slice it , oscillations , or just plain movement , the essence of time is still fundamentally based on the objects movement characteristics caused by interaction with other objects and/or internal characteristics

 

I don't see how any of your points are describing (I think velocity) without time, which was my challenge.

 

1) Oscillations not movement.

2) The rate of time? But Time is relative yes, there is no absolute time.

3) I'm not well up in this, it's not my field of research, but oscillations are not the same as movement, there are people here who are far more qualified to talk about this than I. Everything that can be measured is based on interactions with other things, so I don't see the point?

[Brandon]

If I stand close to a black hole and you stand closer, each of us has a watch and can see an atomic event counter, it registers the oscillations of a caesium atom, after I have counted 1 million oscillations I join you and ask how many you have counted since we started counting at the same instant. we will both have counted the same number of oscillations but our watches will show a different time. time varies from one place to another.

 

Unfortunately from your replies you are merely regurgitating the works of others, take a break and think for yourself. The unit of time is the second, defined from the motion of an atom.

 

 

I wouldn't stand next to a black hole. Didn't Einstein run in to a contradiction like this? O yes. yes he did.

[fireblast_12]

Time is like a line, it doesn't have a beginning or end and it doesn't stop. Us humans just made it into a measurement. Time is everything because everything takes time to do.

[Megabrain]

Time does NOT exist, sorry, there's only motion, BUT people will deny to their last breath this idea, in the same way they cannot concieve of life without money, they cannot concieve of a universe without time.

[Sisyphus]

Time does NOT exist, sorry, there's only motion, BUT people will deny to their last breath this idea, in the same way they cannot concieve of life without money, they cannot concieve of a universe without time.

 

Motion, by definition, is change in position with respect to time. For motion, you need space and time. If time is an illusion, then so is motion. So what are you talking about, and how did you come to be so sure of yourself?

[Megabrain]

We see motion, motion happens motion IS. Time well that's just a name we give to motion, indeed today the second is defined in terms of the motion of caesium atoms. Time is merely a word nothing more nothing less. I'll grant you it's difficult to realise there is no such thing as time. I can show you motion, you cannot show me time other than by some form of mechanical motion.

[Sisyphus]

You can't show me motion except over a period of time. The concepts are inseparable.

[Lan(r)12]

Wow...Megabrain you have officially lost that argument.

[swansont]

We see motion, motion happens motion IS. Time well that's just a name we give to motion, indeed today the second is defined in terms of the motion of caesium atoms.

 

The second is defined in terms of an oscillation between the two hyperfine states of a cesium atom. Ideally, the atom is at rest so that there are no relativistic corrections to be made.

[north]

I don't see how any of your points are describing (I think velocity) without time, which was my challenge.

 

1) Oscillations not movement.

 

how so ?

 

how do you have oscillations without movement ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't see how any of your points are describing (I think velocity) without time, which was my challenge.

 

well look at this way ;

 

suppose there are two objects , moving in a certain direction and one object passes the other

 

now I don't need to know the velocity of the object that passes the other to know that the object being passed is slower than the other

 

time is not necessary for the clarity of the action

Edited April 29, 2009 by north
Consecutive posts merged.

[Klaynos]

I don't see how any of your points are describing (I think velocity) without time, which was my challenge.

 

 

 

how so ?

 

how do you have oscillations without movement ?

 

Please see swansonts post above about the definition of a second.

 

 

 

well look at this way ;

 

suppose there are two objects , moving in a certain direction and one object passes the other

 

now I don't need to know the velocity of the object that passes the other to know that the object being passed is slower than the other

 

time is not necessary for the clarity of the action

 

Just because you have not stated the time, does not mean you have not used the concept, if you take only t=t_0 there is no motion, you have only one position measurement so you can make no comment on velocity.

[north]

Please see swansonts post above about the definition of a second.

 

Originally Posted by north

 

 

well look at this way ;

 

suppose there are two objects , moving in a certain direction and one object passes the other

 

now I don't need to know the velocity of the object that passes the other to know that the object being passed is slower than the other

 

time is not necessary for the clarity of the action

 

Just because you have not stated the time, does not mean you have not used the concept, if you take only t=t_0 there is no motion,

 

yes it does , this not mathematical problem but a practical situation

 

t=t=0

 

mathematically its true but since I haven't asked for any mathematical analysis it has no relevance

 

you have only one position measurement so you can make no comment on velocity.

 

no I have two , obviously

 

to the objects and the objects observers , mathematical measurement is again irrelevant

 

the out come is clear

 

one object overtakes the other

[Klaynos]

yes it does , this not mathematical problem but a practical situation

 

t=t=0

 

mathematically its true but since I haven't asked for any mathematical analysis it has no relevance

 

 

 

no I have two , obviously

 

to the objects and the objects observers , mathematical measurement is again irrelevant

 

the out come is clear

 

one object overtakes the other

 

Physical discussions are mathematical, that is the nature of physics.

 

If you have two position measurements where the position has changed you MUST have a time change, that is how the universe works.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

yes it does , this not mathematical problem but a practical situation

 

t=t=0

 

mathematically its true but since I haven't asked for any mathematical analysis it has no relevance

 

 

 

no I have two , obviously

 

to the objects and the objects observers , mathematical measurement is again irrelevant

 

the out come is clear

 

one object overtakes the other

 

 

Physical discussions are mathematical, that is the nature of physics.

 

perhaps , but that does not make mathematics the fundamental cause , effect or affect of why the event happened

 

fundamentally, any physical discussions are based on what the physical objects do

 

on which the mathematics is based on

 

therefore the physical dynamics of things are based on what they and/or don't do amongst themselves , only

 

and therefore mathematics analysis the end consequence

 

If you have two position measurements where the position has changed you MUST have a time change, that is how the universe works.

 

the two positions don't need to be measured to state the obvious

 

one object is passing the other

 

that should be clear

[Klaynos]

perhaps , but that does not make mathematics the fundamental cause , effect or affect of why the event happened

 

fundamentally, any physical discussions are based on what the physical objects do

 

on which the mathematics is based on

 

therefore the physical dynamics of things are based on what they and/or don't do amongst themselves , only

 

and therefore mathematics analysis the end consequence

 

 

 

the two positions don't need to be measured to state the obvious

 

one object is passing the other

 

that should be clear

 

Without some form of measurement you have no way of knowing that one object has passed the other. It is impossible to tell without measurement.

[north]

Without some form of measurement you have no way of knowing that one object has passed the other. It is impossible to tell without measurement.

 

of course thats just simply wrong and you that Klaynos

[Klaynos]

of course thats just simply wrong and you that Klaynos

 

Urmmm how?

 

Unless I first see (measure) something initially behind something else and then at a later time see (measure) the same object to be infront of it then I've no way of telling whether one object has passed another or not.

[GDG]

the two positions don't need to be measured to state the obvious

 

one object is passing the other

 

that should be clear

 

How would you define the concept of "passing" without talking about time? It seems to me that you have only two choices: (a) you describe "before" and "after" positions, but "before" and "after" inherently require the passage of time; or (b) you talk about one having a greater velocity than the other, but again velocity inherently depends on distance traveled per unit of time.

 

Time as a dimension exists. Units of time (minutes, seconds) are arbitrary.

[fireblast_12]

I think time is like a line that we live on. It has no beginning or end, kind of like a circle.

[Vortigon]

I think time is like a line that we live on. It has no beginning or end, kind of like a circle.

 

I don't agree. As far as I know space-time as we know it, didn't always exist.

 

There was a moment when time came into being. Before that moment there was no time and after that moment time began. afaik.

..................................

 

 

Q: Another question I would like to add to the debate, if we are in an ever expanding and eventually cooling universe, once all energy from the universe has been used, so that there exists no energy of any kind in the universe, will time cease to exist?

 

Basically does time rely on some form of energy for it's existence?

[swansont]

 

Q: Another question I would like to add to the debate, if we are in an ever expanding and eventually cooling universe, once all energy from the universe has been used, so that there exists no energy of any kind in the universe, will time cease to exist?

 

Basically does time rely on some form of energy for it's existence?

 

GR issues aside for the moment, energy is conserved. So we will not run out of energy.

 

Time does not rely on energy, per se.

 

But … time and energy behave like conjugate variables in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, [math]\Delta E \Delta t > \hbar[/math] so your ability to determine time has a dependence on your ability to measure an energy difference. The uncertainty relation potentially limits how well one can realize the standard of the second, but we aren't particularly close to that limit — so-called clock transitions are chosen because they are very narrow (delta-E is small) so that the time uncertainty can be small. And in the scheme of things, h-bar is very small when viewed in terms of limiting factors in making the measurements.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

how do you have oscillations without movement ?

 

The answer to that requires an appreciation and understanding of quantum mechanics and the realization that classical notions do not apply at the atomic scale. The oscillation is of a coherent superposition of spin states of the electron.

 

An electron can be in two different orientations (at the same time!), but never in between, and these orientations do not rely on position. So your argument relies on this being classified as motion.

 

We could also measure time using the period of a decay, where the atoms are just sitting there. Where is the motion upon which the time relies ?

[Vortigon]

thanks for your reply swansont.

 

I would also like to ask how time might be affected by the 'end' stages of Universe expansion, at the point where even particles at the sub-atomic level are pulled apart.

 

Would this cause changes in time? since space and time are so mutually dependent?