Two faces of time?

[StrontiDog]

Hi Bill.

call me Michel.

 

Your last post is difficult to answer because my answer is not the common one. . . .

What you call a meter, I call a millisecond.

 

Because you cannot have distance without time.

 

What does that mean: "distance without time"

That means for example the one and single object moving from one place to another in time=zero.

It is something we do in geometry, as in your example. Coordinates

 

Now, for your last question:

my answer is that it is impossible to remain at the same spatial spot. The concept "same spatial spot" is wrong. IMHO.

As Time elapses, something else is going on. IMHO again.

 

Salut Michel,

 

Je suis heureux de faire votre connaissance.

 

I hope that's correct, it's been a few decades since I studied French.

 

My first point, is that ANY spatial spot is defined by an equation from a specific reference point. So there is a way to define a place in space. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, it's part of what we're talking about.

 

When you say: "What you call a meter, I call a millisecond." I don't understand that. Time and distance are measurements to two different things. You have made the statement, but you haven't backed it up with any real conversion. I just reread the whole thread, to make sure.

 

Time is one dimension, and distance is another. Just like height and width, they are still independant. An object can have one without the other. The same thing sure seems to apply to time.

 

Sure, time is a dimension. But it's another dimension as separate from the 3D spatial dimensions as hieght is, from width. You can have hieght without width, and--as far as I can tell--you can have volume without time.

 

Two points are ten meters apart. I can take one second or I can take one year year to travel between these two points. It doesn't affect the distance betweeen them. So yes, I can, indeed, have distance without time.

 

If you've got something that contradicts this statement, please let me know what it is.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

Au revoir,

 

Bill Wolfe

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This motion that we observe is not required by relativity, which is what the claim was. Linear motion is relative; if two objects are moving relative to each other, either one can be treated as if it were at rest. There is no absolute reference frame.

 

Do you agree that if we account for all known motion (speed of galaxy, solar sytem and planet, etc.,) then apply enough force to an object to bring it to rest relative to the whole universe.

 

(And yes, I know how hard that would be, but it's possible. . .)

 

That the dang thing will still exist?

 

Am I beating a dead horse, here? There must be some way to counteract all the known velocities and return an object to zero kinetic energy. i.e.: v = 0.00.

 

And if we can do this, the thing will still exist, won't it?

 

My field is nuclear physics, not astro. . .but I'm really into this stuff.

 

Bill Wolfe

Edited February 25, 2010 by StrontiDog
Consecutive posts merged.

[michel123456]

Salut Michel,

 

Je suis heureux de faire votre connaissance.

 

I hope that's correct, it's been a few decades since I studied French.

 

 

Your French is perfect.

 

And if we can do this, the thing will still exist, won't it?

It will exist. But that was not the question IMO.

 

 

If you want to follow my thoughts, you'll need to relax first. Make some yoga maybe. Sleep well. And then open your eyes and ask yourself: what is that separates me from the bedroom window. Is that air? Maybe. If i get rid from air, what is it left? Radiation? What if I get rid of radiation? what is left? Space? Meters? Distance? What is distance?

Well, because WE KNOW that the bedroom's window is in the past, I believe that distance is in fact Time.

There are other arguments:

_Distance is always positive, negative distance do not exist, & negative space don't exist.

So is time. Time is always positive. Negative time do not exist.

_when distance increases, time increases too, in exact proportion (at one unit of distance corresponds a certain unit of time) That is the reason why the image we get from far away is also an image of a long time ago.

_I cannot find another argument for the moment.

 

 

Let's Time make his work. The idea has been throwned, that's enough to me.

Je suis très heureux d’avoir pu tenir cette conversation en votre compagnie. Merci beaucoup et à bientot je l’espère.

[swansont]

 

Do you agree that if we account for all known motion (speed of galaxy, solar sytem and planet, etc.,) then apply enough force to an object to bring it to rest relative to the whole universe.

 

(And yes, I know how hard that would be, but it's possible. . .)

 

That the dang thing will still exist?

 

Am I beating a dead horse, here? There must be some way to counteract all the known velocities and return an object to zero kinetic energy. i.e.: v = 0.00.

 

And if we can do this, the thing will still exist, won't it?

 

My field is nuclear physics, not astro. . .but I'm really into this stuff.

 

Bill Wolfe

 

I agree that things will exist when they are at rest; any object is already at rest in its own frame. And that frame just as valid as any other to use as the standard for measuring kinetic energy. Instead of saying that it has a speed with respect to the sun, et. al, you say they have a speed with respect to the object. It's all in how you keep the books.

[StrontiDog]

I agree that things will exist when they are at rest; any object is already at rest in its own frame. And that frame just as valid as any other to use as the standard for measuring kinetic energy. Instead of saying that it has a speed with respect to the sun, et. al, you say they have a speed with respect to the object. It's all in how you keep the books.

 

By that definition, it wouldn't make any difference if you ran into the guy stopped at the stop sign, or he backed into you stopped behind him. I bet the insurance company and the cops would have a different opinion.

 

So motion isn't needed for matter to exist? Michel talked about spin states, and such, and that makes some sense, but that's not what I was getting from this thread when it comes to motion.

 

Thanks for the reality check.

 

Bill Wolfe

[Mr Skeptic]

By that definition, it wouldn't make any difference if you ran into the guy stopped at the stop sign, or he backed into you stopped behind him. I bet the insurance company and the cops would have a different opinion.

 

Sure it's just as valid. Now, what were the stop sign and the road doing during all this? The insurance company uses a rotating earth centered reference frame, as do our traffic regulations. If you want to use a different reference frame, you have to translate the laws into that reference frame.

[swansont]

Sure it's just as valid. Now, what were the stop sign and the road doing during all this? The insurance company uses a rotating earth centered reference frame, as do our traffic regulations. If you want to use a different reference frame, you have to translate the laws into that reference frame.

 

Exactly. Physics doesn't have a preferred frame, but that doesn't mean we can't choose one for convenience.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So motion isn't needed for matter to exist? Michel talked about spin states, and such, and that makes some sense, but that's not what I was getting from this thread when it comes to motion.

 

Spin states, of course, are intrinsic angular momentum rather than physical motion.

[StrontiDog]

Well, because WE KNOW that the bedroom's window is in the past, I believe that distance is in fact Time.

 

Michel,

 

I made the yoga and had a good breakfast, thinking about your idea and explanations, the whole time.

 

My left hand and my right hand still occupy two different volumes (points) in space at the same time. What separates them is distance.

 

You and your window would seem to be the same. I remain unconvinced, but appreciate the mental exercise that this thread has provided.

 

 

À bientôt,

 

Bill Wolfe

[michel123456]

I didn't expect you to be convinced so easily.

It was a pleasure to disagree friendly. I really appreciate.

Michel.

[StrontiDog]

Spin states, of course, are intrinsic angular momentum rather than physical motion.

 

 

Since we were talking about stopping motion, which we can (maybe) do from a physical moving-through-space perspective, I was just seeking clarification of what I thought I was reading. (A few respectable folks seemed to agree that matter would not exist if we did this. . .) That task has been accomplished.

 

If quark angular momentum were to stop, in all or any of the six flavors, I'm not sure that matter would exist. Don't know if it would be a huge explosion, or a fizzle-out, but it's an intriguing idea, isn't it?

 

I know it's only a sidebar to the thread, but it was one of those interesting outgrowths that make this place work. No?

 

Bill Wolfe

Edited March 1, 2010 by StrontiDog

[swansont]

I agree that if we could impose restrictions on the universe that are contrary to the laws of physics, the universe as we know it would not exist. I'd argue any discussion along these lines is metaphysics rather than physics.

[Mr Skeptic]

Still, it could be useful as a thought experiment. After all, we don't really know all the laws of physics.

[pioneer]

There is a simple thought experiment that can show relative motion, within space-time, can, at times, create an effect that can violate the conservation of energy. Here is that thought experiment.

 

We have three references in a triangle, all with the same mass. To one of the references. we add sufficient energy until its velocity reaches relativistic velocity V.

 

Lastly, we ask all three references to tell us the relative velocities of the other two references. The two stationary references will see one moving reference and one stationary reference. The moving reference, using relative reference, will see the two stationary references both appear to be moving. A major problem appears, when we do our energy balance. We only added enough energy to move one reference mass at V, but relative reference allowed one of the htree references to see two masses moving at V, which would require twice the actual energy used.

 

Based on the energy balance, the three references are not relative because only the two stationary references complete the energy balance. The reason for the perpetual motion in the third (energy) reference, is SR has three variables M,D,T. If we only use D,T we avoid the requirement of the energy balance. This allows us to create energy out of the void.

 

Say we used the relative reference, which sees twice the amount of actual energy that was added. We don't tell them, but let them think in terms of this relative reference energy assumption. It is sort of mean but it can still be funny.

 

We will tell them, we will slow one of the two other references (both appear to be moving) to their zero velocity, to get back half their observed energy. We will then use that energy to bring them up to the velocity of the remaining reference.

 

Using the energy balance (real not illusion), to get this to work, we will need to put the final effect before the cause in their reference. They have the actual energy so we need to slow them first, so they think they are moving. This will give us the energy needed to add to one of the other references, so they appear not to be moving (relative to the original V). Using relative reference and perpetual motion energy, we will need to mess with time in their reference, putting the future before the past to be consistent with actual energy.

[swansont]

A major problem appears, when we do our energy balance. We only added enough energy to move one reference mass at V, but relative reference allowed one of the htree references to see two masses moving at V, which would require twice the actual energy used.

 

It's not a problem, and here's why: conservation is not the same thing as invariance. Invariance means it's the same in any frame — rest masses are invariant, the speed of light is invariant. Energy, however, is not. Conservation of energy means that the energy won't change, but the value must be measured within a single frame of reference. If you go to another frame you'll get a different value, which will not change within that frame.

[KennyC]

Fascinating discussion. I'm currently reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics..." and have just gotten to the part where he suggests some similar ideas about the "problems" with Time as a dimension. Apparently there are mathematical systems where the time dimensions more or less disappears into the "background."

 

At one point (Ch 15: Physics After String Theory - page 239 of my epub version of the book):

 

"....There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics.

 

Around the beginning of the seventeenth century, Descartes and Galileo both made a most wonderful discovery: You could draw a graph, with one axis being space and the other being time. A motion through space then becomes a curve on the graph (see Fig. 17). In this way, time is represented as if it were another dimension of space. Motion is frozen, and a whole history of constant motion and change is presented to us as something static and unchanging. If I had to guess (and guessing is what I do for a living), this is the scene of the crime."

[swansont]

You can paramaterize variables, and there are constants of motion. Not really news anymore.

[michel123456]

Fascinating discussion. (...)

Around the beginning of the seventeenth century, Descartes and Galileo both made a most wonderful discovery: You could draw a graph, with one axis being space and the other being time. A motion through space then becomes a curve on the graph (see Fig. 17). In this way, time is represented as if it were another dimension of space. Motion is frozen, and a whole history of constant motion and change is presented to us as something static and unchanging. (...)

 

It is the conventional point of vue.

Space is the strong element, and time is the weak element.

Time is converted in space. It is convenient because you can represent the whole scenery on a sheet of paper.

But you can reverse the balance, and consider Time as the strong element, and Space the weak one.

Then you get Space converted in Time.

Which is not so convenient I must admit.

But essentialy it must give the same scenery, at the difference that nothing is static anymore.

[Sisyphus]

It's not as simple as reversing it, though. When considering the motion of an object, time can't be the dependent variable. An object can return to the same location at two different times, but it can't return to the same time at two different locations. So to speak.

[KennyC]

It's not as simple as reversing it, though. When considering the motion of an object, time can't be the dependent variable. An object can return to the same location at two different times, but it can't return to the same time at two different locations. So to speak.

 

Or can it?

[Akhenaten2]

Wait, what? Relativity says no such thing.

 

Relativity tells us that motion is relative. Its perfectly acceptable to say something is at rest, and there is no physics you can do that will tell you that something is in a state of motion. There is no claim about things not existing if they are at rest. Where did that come from?

My apologies to everyone. I made this throw away comment, which I thought everyone would understand. It turns out to be highly controversial and I didn't think to revisit and substantiate it. Naughty of me, but the thread has developed too far for me to respond on any but a general basis.

Actually this should not have caused any controversy. My comment is a true and accurate comment about Relativity theory, but perhaps many have trouble seeing this connection.

Firstly, one of you physisists should by now have pointed out to everyone that both the Special and General theories of Relativity are actually theories of MOTION and (more to the point) the motion of the universe. SR describes the behaviour of objects moving at constant velocity and - to briefly quote J.Cribben from Q is for Quantum - "GR deals with accelerations, which is why it is more general, BUT CRUCIALLY is ALSO a theory of gravity. The cornerstone of GR is the 'equivalence principle' which says that Acceleration and gravity are precisely equivalent".

I think we should all now conclude that Relativity theory is ALL ABOUT MOTIONS.

GR only became an "acclaimed" theory of gravity after 1919 when Einsteins calculation of the bending of light by the sun, was confirmed ahead of Newtons. It was not widely accepted as the definitive theory of gravity until much later.

 

If Mercury did not exist, or had been behaving in line with Newtonian gravitation, Einstein might never have looked for an alternative explanation for its "strange" motion relative to the sun.

So it would be quite legitimate for me to claim I only meant that, without motion, Relativity theory wouldn't exist. But of course that is not quite what I intended.

Einstein theorised that its motion could be explained if Mercurys' mass-energy was interacting with an all pervasive field of "Space-Time" emanating from the sun.

In doing so he quashed any idea that any 'force of attraction' was causing this motion. This was 95 years ago.

He realised that his discovery further implied that all clumps of matter in the universe would behave similarly, because the "Principle of Relativity" (the laws of physics are the same everywhere) says everything must be in motion relative to everything else and all must contribute proportionately to the overall "background" of space-time.

To be cont...

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

cont....

Einsteins' field equation relating this mass-energy to space-time, indicated to him that the universe should be either expanding or contracting. It couldn't be static. Almost everyone on the planet, at that time, believed that the universe (on a non-local scale) was totally static.

He was therefore entreatied to modify his equation to nullify this "unseemly"motion. To do this he invented and added to the field equation, the "infamous" cosmological (or lambda) constant (more properly a small acceleration of undetermined sign - or put more simply one motion to stop another)

Clearly AE was preoccupied with 'Motion' and preoccupied enough to risk devaluing his most important lifes-work.

Both Special and General Relativity are now well proven theories.

Cribben comments:- "There is no doubt the General theory is a good and accurate description of the behaviour of matter in the universe and of the relationship between space, time and matter." He goes on to say - " One of the most important features of the general theory, is that it provides a COMPLETE description of the universe and of the way the universe has expanded away from a "singularity" (I might argue with him here) at the beginning of time, via the Big Bang, to reach its present state."

This is the expansion of ALL the universe; everything in the universe; from the instant of the BB, through any inflationary expansion, subject always to gravity and now (we realise) Dark Energy.

Trust me - if its in the universe - ITS MOVING - there is no tenable option - GR says so!

If it isn't in the universe now, it never was and therefore does not exist in our reality. GR implies so!

This also ligitimately answers all criticism of my comment - but is still not my full response.

TB cont...

Edited March 5, 2010 by Akhenaten2
Consecutive posts merged.

[michel123456]

It's not as simple as reversing it, though. When considering the motion of an object, time can't be the dependent variable. An object can return to the same location at two different times, but it can't return to the same time at two different locations. So to speak.

 

Right. But 2 objects can be at the same time at two different locations. It is the definition of 2 objects instead of one. And 2 objects cannot be at the same location at the same time.

 

So to resume, we have

a _one object @ one location @ 1 time. Possible.

b _one object @ one location @ 2 times. Possible

c _one object @ 2 locations @ 1 time. Impossible

d _one object @ 2 locations @ 2 times. Possible.

e _two objects @ 1 location @ 1 time. Impossible

f _two objects @ 1 location @ 2 times, Possible

g _two objects @ 2 locations @ 1 time. Possible.

h _two objects @ 2 locations @ 2 times. Possible.

 

a. is almolst trivial

 

c. is a consequence of the limitation of SOL

d. is the definition of motion

e. is the Pauli principle

 

g. is the definition of what 2 objects are. It is the inverse of point c.

h. is almost trivial.

 

b. & f. are the remains: the definition of time.

[KennyC]

I just watched this over at TED:

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_on_the_arrow_of_time.html

[phyti]

michel;

post 19

 

And what is finally amazing, is that what we use to

consider 3D space can be considered as 3d time as well.

That's the reason why space & time are so intricated. They

are the one and same thing.

 

This may be new to you, but not to everyone.

Science already measures spatial distance using a clock,

eg., reflecting laser beams from the moon. The time is

scaled by c to equal distance.

We commonly use time and distance interchangably for travel

purposes. A destination 60 miles distant is 1 hr away (with

an assumed speed of 60mph).

SR however demonstrates that time depends on the motion of

the observer, which alters his external spatial measurements.

 

Distance is a (unknown) property of space. Space must have

a structure if it is curved by mass, i.e., you can't curve nothing.

Time is a measure of activity. An example that is never or

rarely used is the metronome. It establishs a beat

(frequency) to play a given number of notes per measure.

It's just a standard and nothing more, as are all clocks.

 

Clocks just slice the common time of the universe into

different length intervals, depending on your motion.

With SR's world of events, when we measure time, we match

some event in space with the closest clock event.

 

Any good text on SR will show how the invariant interval,

an equality with 3 independent variables, is converted to a

4 dimensional statement. It's just convenient math.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

It should now be 'motionless' in reference to everything else in the universe.

Sincerely,

 

Bill Wolfe

 

It would have zero momentum, the same as the universe.

The objects would have a range of velocities, thus it would not be still relative to them.

It could only be motionless relative to all things if they too were motionless.

[michel123456]

michel;

post 19

This may be new to you, but not to everyone.

Science already measures spatial distance using a clock,

eg., reflecting laser beams from the moon. The time is

scaled by c to equal distance.

We commonly use time and distance interchangably for travel

purposes. A destination 60 miles distant is 1 hr away (with

an assumed speed of 60mph).

SR however demonstrates that time depends on the motion of

the observer, which alters his external spatial measurements.

 

I know that.

What I am proposing is to consider all the consequences of this interchangibility. If you can interchange 2 concepts, in some sense they must be 2 representations of the same thing. That's why I say: when you see distance, you see time.

 

Distance is a (unknown) property of space. Space must have

a structure if it is curved by mass, i.e., you can't curve nothing.

 

I don't think that distance is a property of space. I don't think that space is curved by mass ( please don't consider this statement as ignorance, consider it as disagreement). I don't think that space has any structure. Matter has a structure.

You are right when you say that you can't curve nothing.

I think space (& time) is a resultant of matter.

[toastywombel]

"It would have zero momentum, the same as the universe.

The objects would have a range of velocities, thus it would not be still relative to them.

It could only be motionless relative to all things if they too were motionless."

 

An object could be appeared motionless to other objects, and both could be moving in the same trajectory all at the same speed. But really it depends on how you look at it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I know that.

What I am proposing is to consider all the consequences of this interchangibility. If you can interchange 2 concepts, in some sense they must be 2 representations of the same thing. That's why I say: when you see distance, you see time.

 

 

 

I don't think that distance is a property of space. I don't think that space is curved by mass ( please don't consider this statement as ignorance, consider it as disagreement). I don't think that space has any structure. Matter has a structure.

You are right when you say that you can't curve nothing.

I think space (& time) is a resultant of matter.

 

If space is not curved by mass, why have we observed light from stars bending around the sun on their way towards Earth?

[michel123456]

If space is not curved by mass, why have we observed light from stars bending around the sun on their way towards Earth?

 

I do not deny observation.

 

Take the question like this:

 

There is a relation between mass & space.

We are observing mass curving space. But mass we are.

We are not impartial observators of the phenomenon, we are half the phenomenon.

 

What is space observing?

Or: what becomes to our equations if you turn everything symmetricaly like you turn a sock inside out?

I guess space would see mass curving.