time as a condition is space

[michel123456]

Time as we know it is only a perception of the change we see, (...)

 

I don't think so.

 

Time and space are just dimensions, coordinates on a map.

 

I don't think so.

 

Think of the famous equation e=Mc^2

 

Considering units of the right hand side it goes like this:

_take Mass(1)

_multiply by 2d space(2)

_divide by 2d time(3)

_you get energy

 

Space and time convert mass into energy (4): that is what I understand. Space & Time are not simple coordinates on a map IMHO. To me Space & Time (Spacetime) are dynamic components of reality. They are not an empty receptacle.

 

Notes

(1) that is the quantity of matter which is the source of gravity.

 

(2) from c^2 which is m/s squared. I don't know why meters^2, it is much like the square of the distance in Newtonian mechanics.

 

(3) from the same c^2. I don't know why seconds^2.

 

(4) and not that "mass is energy" as IMHO misleadingly stated so often. Because c^2 has units, it is not a simple coefficient.

Edited May 11, 2011 by michel123456

[ajb]

Time and space are just dimensions, coordinates on a map.

 

The idea of space and time pre-dates that of the mathematical idea of space and in particular coordinates. The intuitive physical idea of space and time was cast in to the mathematical idea of space and time, as you say as coordinates. This then allows one to build theories and make calculations which then change our initial ideas about space and time.

 

Newton and Einstein both used the mathematical abstraction of space and time to give new insights into the nature of the physical idea of space and time.

 

Without wanting to put words in michel123456's mouth, I doubt he will disagree that using coordinates to describe or model the physical idea of space and time is very useful in physics. His objection, I believe is that space and time are "just coordinates", that is we need a clear physical interpretation something close to what we intuitively think of as space and time.

 

Time as we know it is only a perception of the change we see, we cant quite comprehend time as it is in truth. Time is relative to energy, if you like time can be seen as energy in as far as it cant exist without change and energy is the source of that change. Shame we dont quite know what Energy is.

 

I would include the potential for change/movement in this understanding.

 

What about particle in the ground state (global minima of the potential) or a meta-stable state (local minima of the potential). These have potential energy but are not associated with any change or movement? Even meta-stable states can have very large life times, effectively making them stable.

[michel123456]

Yes AJB.

[lemur]

Without wanting to put words in michel123456's mouth, I doubt he will disagree that using coordinates to describe or model the physical idea of space and time is very useful in physics. His objection, I believe is that space and time are "just coordinates", that is we need a clear physical interpretation something close to what we intuitively think of as space and time.

But isn't intuition often misleading in physics?

[ajb]

But isn't intuition often misleading in physics?

 

Intuition is really relative to ones understanding. But anyway, one would hope that a mathematical understanding would add to your initial understanding and possibly your "final" idea of space and time may be quite far from what Newton or even Einstein envisaged.

[lemur]

Intuition is really relative to ones understanding. But anyway, one would hope that a mathematical understanding would add to your initial understanding and possibly your "final" idea of space and time may be quite far from what Newton or even Einstein envisaged.

Math is a very powerful tool. The drawback of that can be that people may reify math-emergent concepts as actual physical entities. I think this is what has happened with the idea of space as a container and I also think that a belief in time as an entity extending through space is caused by the observation of multiple events as simultaneous as viewed from the same point of view. I tend to shy away from these discussions about the ontology of space and time because my position tends to win me enemies among scientists, for some reason. Still, I think the instrumental use of concepts for modeling and prediction is a separate affair from analyzing what the essential ontological nature of things is, and I think both can be scientific projects insofar as empiricism is maintained as a basis for reasoning.

[Realitycheck]

However, the issue of relativity is rendered moot without mass, right? Without the prescence of mass, nothing has no effect on nothing and coordinates are just coordinates, right?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Realitycheck

[ajb]

Math is a very powerful tool. The drawback of that can be that people may reify math-emergent concepts as actual physical entities.

 

It is true that theoretical physicists are not always very good at distinguishing the mathematical constructions from the physical world they model.

 

However, the issue of relativity is rendered moot without mass, right? Without the prescence of mass, nothing has no effect on nothing and coordinates are just coordinates, right?

 

The issue of mass in general relativity is quite complicated. Anyway, the important thing in general relativity is not really mass but energy-momentum. For example, photons have no mass but carry energy. As such photons can act as a source of gravity.

Edited May 12, 2011 by ajb

[csmyth3025]

Why is it bad for something to be an abstraction? Why do people have to confound truth with concreteness? It can be true to say that it is 100m from one end of a field to the other without distance being a concrete entity in physical reality? Yet it would be confounding to say that "100m" is as concrete as saying there are "one million blades of grass" on the same field. 100m might be more useful for various purposes, but it is still abstract whereas "one million blades of grass" could be less abstract but not as useful.

An abstraction is a notion that people use. In this case it matters not whether we want to think of time and distance as an abstraction.

 

A deer eyeing a cougar circling the fringes of a meadow percieves 100 meters as a very real thing. The deer also perceives the time it takes for the cougar to close the distance as real. The deer (if it has good instincts) will make a run for it when the cougar gets "too close" - unconciously calculating how much of a lead it will need to get away if the cougar really is looking for a meal.

 

The Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun. It takes a year for the Earth to make one orbit around the sun. Neither the sun or the Earth care whether we want to think of this time and this distance as an abstraction. Time and distance are very real - the world around us is a constant reminder of that inescapable fact.

 

Chris

[michel123456]

Very interesting description of the same thing once as distance and once as time.

 

FYI following Edward T. Hall in his "The Hidden Dimension (1966)" and IIRC (I read this book in 1979!) the deer does not calculate inconsciously any time or distance. The deer litteraly extrapolates its being to this distance. He "is" larger than its own body. We experience the same thing when someone comes too close to us, speaking from a one inch distance from our face for example. (I hope this will not send the thread on wrong tracks)

[lemur]

The Earth is about 93 million miles from the Sun. It takes a year for the Earth to make one orbit around the sun. Neither the sun or the Earth care whether we want to think of this time and this distance as an abstraction. Time and distance are very real - the world around us is a constant reminder of that inescapable fact.

Discussions about whether things are real or not are pointless. The problem is when people start reflecting on what time or space are in their essence. Then people do something similar to what you are doing, i.e. make reference to empirical realities, and then use that to "prove" metaphysical or epistemological claims. Plus there's a whole politics that goes along with the everyday views that time and space are real entities outside of their "contents." I would call it the politics of cultural imperativism, but that is really a tangential social issue.

[michel123456]

Discussions about whether things are real or not are pointless. The problem is when people start reflecting on what time or space are in their essence. Then people do something similar to what you are doing, i.e. make reference to empirical realities, and then use that to "prove" metaphysical or epistemological claims. (...)

 

IMHO the question about the profound nature of time & space will remain as long as there is no reference to empirical reality. Scientists may understand everything through mathematics, but if they don't translate the result in corresponding experience, the knowledge remains "unexplained" or incomprehensible. Some scientists argue that beyond some level things are too complicated to be translated in layman language. They are surely right.

But I cannot believe space & time are so complicated.

I strongly believe the answer will flow one day like clear water, and pupils of 6 years of age will understand what space & time are, while their parents will remain perplexed on how is it possible to have been a so deep mystery for humanity for so long.

[lemur]

But I cannot believe space & time are so complicated.

I strongly believe the answer will flow one day like clear water, and pupils of 6 years of age will understand what space & time are, while their parents will remain perplexed on how is it possible to have been a so deep mystery for humanity for so long.

Idk. I think people's, even children's, conceptions about the nature of time and space largely emerge from popular mythologies and metaphors used in stories and everyday talk. So when people hear time described as a river or an invisible fabric that ties everything together, etc., they don't want to let go of those any more than they want to let go of Santa Claus as a metaphor for Christmas giving or God as a metaphor for creative power in a general sense. I think there's a reason why Einstein had to state something as simple as the fact that two clocks can be viewed simultaneously before explaining the relativity of time. I.e that was the only empirical basis he had for describing "time." He couldn't say, "time is a river that flows at different speeds under different conditions," because then he would have to account for the "river," the cause of its flow, etc.

[csmyth3025]

Discussions about whether things are real or not are pointless. The problem is when people start reflecting on what time or space are in their essence. Then people do something similar to what you are doing, i.e. make reference to empirical realities, and then use that to "prove" metaphysical or epistemological claims...

I'm not trying to prove any metaphysical claims about time. Time is real. If you don't believe me, wait an hour before posting a reply.

 

Chris

[lemur]

I'm not trying to prove any metaphysical claims about time. Time is real. If you don't believe me, wait an hour before posting a reply.

What does that demonstrate? What alternative scenario are you comparing it to? A situation where nothing moves? If you assume that time is something separate from 3D space, then it's possible to imagine space without time. But why wouldn't this just be an artifact of the ability to imagine "a single moment frozen in time?" Why are we even capable of imagining such a thing, considering that it never happens in reality? If you find fish frozen in ice, is that the same thing as being frozen in time? If not, why would the mind analogize something real to something impossible? Because water normally moves and when it stops, it seems like an interruption of movement as its natural state? Why isn't it just as natural to see objects in motion as a continuous dynamism? Time could be just the abstract logic of sequentializing events/moments to make sense of motion. Really I don't like these discussions because I just get trolled in when people do things like insist that time is real. Of course SOMETHING is real or there would be no perception of time. The question is what is physical and empirically observable and how and what is subjective and how to distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity.

[36grit]

A time dialation is a very real and physical effect. Those who think that time is man made or only exists in peoples minds would probably believe that smoking doesn't give you cancer.

Edited May 13, 2011 by 36grit

[rigney]

It is true that theoretical physicists are not always very good at distinguishing the mathematical constructions from the physical world they model.

 

 

 

The issue of mass in general relativity is quite complicated. Anyway, the important thing in general relativity is not really mass but energy-momentum. For example, photons have no mass but carry energy. As such photons can act as a source of gravity.

Not to deviate from the subject, but would it then be proper to advertise with falsifiability: that the universe doesn't exist? Edited May 14, 2011 by rigney

[Skaffen]

Time is simply potential - it does not 'require' space (it is the 1st 'dimension'). - Only our observation/measurement of it requires space.

 

Time is only direction, which is why we can only travel through it at varying speeds but not against/counter it. (Travel to the past)

[36grit]

I'm a solid believer that real time/distance is stiched together as a fabric one proton stroke at a time. This explains how time slows down for objects in motion relative to objects that are not. It explains why light travels around galaxies to get here. It explains why solid objects seldom decay in a symetricaly uniform manner. It explains why there is no cold fusion except in the case of magnetics.

The atom is a time machine. Every atom is it's own present time, and all that you see with yours eyes is the past and all you see inside the atom is the dynamics, of the statistical probability of it's next point being defined for it's next exact and logical position in space/time and it's possibility of existance and the weight of it's resistance to the infinite fields that permeate all space and everyting that is.