The problem with mathematics and time

[Allan Zade]

The question doesn't make sense. One is about measurement and the other is about the nature of coordinate systems.

Substitute length onto the discussion. What's the relationship between a point on a meter stick and dimension?

 

That is not quite correct. There are a very little number of people who understand that relation. I can explain that to you.

 

We use a meter stick to make measurement of length. We use it as a unit of length. As a result it's possible to make measurement of dimension or calibrate axe of a spatial dimension using that unit of length. That is possible because both things (dimension and the measuring unit) have same basic property i.e. length. So we use length of a measuring unit (property of the unit) to make measurement of length (same property) of a spatial dimension. As you can see only same properties are comparable.

 

For example we cannot use a unit of mass to make measurement of length because property of mass is incomparable to property of length.

 

In your case you tell me following. You have "dimension of time" and use a process to make measurement of that dimension using a property of that process (phase). As a result we have same situation as I mentioned above (units with incomparable properties). In that case you are trying to make measurement of time dimension using property of a process. Moreover you develop unit of time measurement from property of physical process. In that case you have incomparable properties that cannot be used to any measurement.

 

In other words you need to have unit of time itself to make measurement of time dimension because property of time dimension is incomparable to any other property of any process or object of physical world.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Allan Zade

[swansont]

That is not quite correct. There are a very little number of people who understand that relation. I can explain that to you.

 

We use a meter stick to make measurement of length. We use it as a unit of length. As a result it's possible to make measurement of dimension or calibrate axe of a spatial dimension using that unit of length. That is possible because both things (dimension and the measuring unit) have same basic property i.e. length. So we use length of a measuring unit (property of the unit) to make measurement of length (same property) of a spatial dimension. As you can see only same properties are comparable.

 

The measurement does not depend on the orthogonality. I can use any basis I want and still come up with a measurement. That we have a dimension and can make a measurement are not related — you mention mass below. Mass is not a dimension, yet we can measure it.

 

For example we cannot use a unit of mass to make measurement of length because property of mass is incomparable to property of length.

 

In your case you tell me following. You have "dimension of time" and use a process to make measurement of that dimension using a property of that process (phase). As a result we have same situation as I mentioned above (units with incomparable properties). In that case you are trying to make measurement of time dimension using property of a process. Moreover you develop unit of time measurement from property of physical process. In that case you have incomparable properties that cannot be used to any measurement.

 

In other words you need to have unit of time itself to make measurement of time dimension because property of time dimension is incomparable to any other property of any process or object of physical world.

 

I can measure length with something of a known velocity and a clock. Neither has units of length. That is, in fact, how the standard of length is defined (distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second)

 

Phase is time. You can integrate frequency to get phase. That is, in fact, how it is done.

[Allan Zade]

Phase is time. You can integrate frequency to get phase. That is, in fact, how it is done.

 

Very well, now I can see you point of view on the matter of time. It looks like final decision about nature of time. As 'Daedalus' said us

 

I have read that you work for the government dealing with atomic clocks or something like that.

 

Your point of view can be applicable to the imagination of the atomic clock staff because you obviously need to have some point of view that is applicable to that type of clock and the way of its operation. As a result you disregard any other definition of time because from your point of view there is the only one way for time measurement i.e. your atomic clock. For example:

 

This is a matter of practicality and application, not definition. You can use either to measure some interval of time, but to make a practical, continuously-running clock, you need an oscillator of some sort.

 

But that is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. We discuss here matter of time, mathematics and their relation to each other. We discuss NOT a way that your atomic clock makes its operation!

 

From my point of view a moderator need not to suppress discussion with something that has relation to a practical application of discussing matter because our discussion goes not out of the logical frame of science.

 

Well, going back to nature of time we have following.

 

I can measure length with something of a known velocity and a clock.

 

Obviously you need to make some calculation for that. And right calculation must use famous equation: S=V*T. As a result multiplication of known velocity (V) and measured Period of time (T)(not clock itself) gives you length (S) that was covered by a thing going forward with a known velocity.

 

In that case after mathematical calculation you have dimension of a quantity as meter. That is fundamental unit of length and its comparable property for anything else is length.

 

Hence you can compare two things only by means of same property exactly as I mentioned in my previous post. Length is comparable only to length. That is principle of any measurement. So you cannot make comparison between different properties of anything.

 

Furthermore transformation of equation mentioned above gives us following: T=S/V. That is definition of time (T) regarding length (S) and velocity (V). That is precisely correct mathematically and coincides with your method of length measurement using time (see above).

 

But you refused that definition of time recently:

 

We can still imply cycles and consequently oscillation even when the device does not physically oscillate. We can clearly measure time as:

[math]time = \frac{distance}{speed}[/math]

 

And your answer was that:

 

The problem is that you can't build a clock out of a 10-meter track; for a clock you need a continuing process, which implies oscillations. It's a matter of practicality, not definition.

 

But, dear swansont I'm telling that again we discuss not the way of operation of your pet atomic clock. The matter of discussion is time itself. And we CAN use different methods to do that measurement.

 

Well, about you atomic clock I can tell you following. That device makes measurement of time interval not time itself as you probably think.

 

To start its operation you need to turn it on and make special procedure of synchronization with any other device that makes time count. That is essential because without that operation your clock indication means nothing. As a result your atomic clock makes measurement of time interval form the moment of synchronization to any other given point of time. It never makes measurement of time itself!

 

Any device that is dedicated to so-called time measurement uses same way of operation.

 

I guess we can go further with other members of that forum in this discussion. Dear colleagues please don't be afraid with conversation between swansont and me. We both very like our area of activity. But we have not same point of view on the matter of time.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Allan Zade

[swansont]

Your point of view can be applicable to the imagination of the atomic clock staff because you obviously need to have some point of view that is applicable to that type of clock and the way of its operation. As a result you disregard any other definition of time because from your point of view there is the only one way for time measurement i.e. your atomic clock. For example:

 

It works for any kind of clock. We can measure days in terms of rotations of the earth, and the time of day in terms of fractions of that rotation. i.e. the phase. Pendulum clocks work with this, as do quartz crystal clocks.

 

But that is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. We discuss here matter of time, mathematics and their relation to each other. We discuss NOT a way that your atomic clock makes its operation!

 

I don't think the way an atomic clock operates has come up once in this thread. I mentioned an oscillator, which is a component of any clock.

 

From my point of view a moderator need not to suppress discussion with something that has relation to a practical application of discussing matter because our discussion goes not out of the logical frame of science.

 

Nothing has been suppressed. I pointed out one of the rules earlier. You are free to start a new thread to discuss your own view on the subject.

 

Obviously you need to make some calculation for that. And right calculation must use famous equation: S=V*T. As a result multiplication of known velocity (V) and measured Period of time (T)(not clock itself) gives you length (S) that was covered by a thing going forward with a known velocity.

 

In that case after mathematical calculation you have dimension of a quantity as meter. That is fundamental unit of length and its comparable property for anything else is length.

 

Hence you can compare two things only by means of same property exactly as I mentioned in my previous post. Length is comparable only to length. That is principle of any measurement. So you cannot make comparison between different properties of anything.

 

Furthermore transformation of equation mentioned above gives us following: T=S/V. That is definition of time (T) regarding length (S) and velocity (V). That is precisely correct mathematically and coincides with your method of length measurement using time (see above).

 

And frequency has units of 1/sec, so using something with a frequency to measure time is in complete accordance with this.

 

 

But you refused that definition of time recently:

 

I didn't "refuse" a definition, I merely pointed out that it was impractical for making a clock. In fact, I expressly said it was NOT a matter of definition.

 

But, dear swansont I'm telling that again we discuss not the way of operation of your pet atomic clock. The matter of discussion is time itself. And we CAN use different methods to do that measurement.

 

But that isn't the discussion at hand. You claimed that my statements were untrue. I don't see that you have shown that to be the case.

 

Well, about you atomic clock I can tell you following. That device makes measurement of time interval not time itself as you probably think.

 

To start its operation you need to turn it on and make special procedure of synchronization with any other device that makes time count. That is essential because without that operation your clock indication means nothing. As a result your atomic clock makes measurement of time interval form the moment of synchronization to any other given point of time. It never makes measurement of time itself!

 

Any device that is dedicated to so-called time measurement uses same way of operation.

 

Fair enough. I agree that the initial phase of a clock is arbitrary.

[Allan Zade]

It works for any kind of clock. We can measure days in terms of rotations of the earth, and the time of day in terms of fractions of that rotation. i.e. the phase. Pendulum clocks work with this, as do quartz crystal clocks.

… I mentioned an oscillator, which is a component of any clock.

 

That is correct finally. In other words each process can be used to measure so-called "time". If we have recurrent process i.e. rotation or oscillation we can use it as a mechanism of a clock. Adding counting device to that mechanism we have a clock. As a result we are free to use any recurrent process to build a clock.

 

Hence we have countless number of clocks with different oscillators and counting mechanisms. But all of them used initial procedure of setting initial indication. As a result all clocks shows their noon at celestial noon i.e. at the moment of time when the Sun crosses celestial meridian (I disregard time zones here because it is artificial thing). That is usual method of synchronization of all clocks and setting their indications to the same according to mutual location of the celestial bodies (the Earth and the Sun).

 

As a result the clocks need human activity to keep "correct" indication. Without that activity any clock keeps counting of inner process of oscillation disregarding operation of other clocks (and phase of the Earth). Hence each clock keeps its own "time" and its own indication without human activity. That is something that they usually recognize as "man made construction" and that is "physical" time (as indication of a clocks).

 

From the other hand humankind has idea of "time" as abstract construction. That "time" has not any spatial dimension as uses a lot of other descriptions to support idea of "time". That is human idea of so-called "time". As an idea it is involved to so many descriptions and sophistic speculations.

 

More other they use usually "physical" time as support for idea of "time" trying to support that idea with a hand-made oscillation counting device. That way ever fails because human mind is unable to control physical processes including process of oscillations. As a result artificial constriction in human mind stays ever against other artificial construction.

 

That situation refuses any solution and breaks any attempt to reach right understanding of anything that has relation to process of oscillations.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Allan Zade

[swansont]

That is correct finally. In other words each process can be used to measure so-called "time". If we have recurrent process i.e. rotation or oscillation we can use it as a mechanism of a clock. Adding counting device to that mechanism we have a clock. As a result we are free to use any recurrent process to build a clock.

 

Hence we have countless number of clocks with different oscillators and counting mechanisms. But all of them used initial procedure of setting initial indication. As a result all clocks shows their noon at celestial noon i.e. at the moment of time when the Sun crosses celestial meridian (I disregard time zones here because it is artificial thing). That is usual method of synchronization of all clocks and setting their indications to the same according to mutual location of the celestial bodies (the Earth and the Sun).

 

As a result the clocks need human activity to keep "correct" indication. Without that activity any clock keeps counting of inner process of oscillation disregarding operation of other clocks (and phase of the Earth). Hence each clock keeps its own "time" and its own indication without human activity. That is something that they usually recognize as "man made construction" and that is "physical" time (as indication of a clocks).

 

IOW, there is no such thing as a perfect clock. But that limitation is separate from the notion of time. There is no perfect measurement of anything.

[md65536]

Time interval. They are not used as clocks. This is a matter of practicality and application, not definition. You can use either to measure some interval of time, but to make a practical, continuously-running clock, you need an oscillator of some sort.

Sorry for the digression from the main conversation:

 

Isn't "age" a measure of time, which does not necessarily involve an oscillator? Eg. The age of a person, or a burning candle, or the universe.

 

Isn't age often used as a continuously running clock, as long as whatever is aging will outlast anything that needs to be timed? The most extreme example would be using the age of the universe to measure time. Carbon dating might be considered a measurement of time based on a continuously running decay, etc.

 

 

[derek w]

Without intelligent beings that have the ability to study and use there imagination,to understand the universe the universe would be a pointless entity,of no value to anyone.Time would not exist because it is a figment of our imagination,a concept that we use to help us understand what we perceive.And my question would be,are physicists the best people to explain our existence.They maybe taking us in the wrong direction who knows?

[swansont]

Sorry for the digression from the main conversation:

 

Isn't "age" a measure of time, which does not necessarily involve an oscillator? Eg. The age of a person, or a burning candle, or the universe.

 

Isn't age often used as a continuously running clock, as long as whatever is aging will outlast anything that needs to be timed? The most extreme example would be using the age of the universe to measure time. Carbon dating might be considered a measurement of time based on a continuously running decay, etc.

 

How do you determine someone or something's age? What is the standard against which it's measured?

[md65536]

How do you determine someone or something's age? What is the standard against which it's measured?

Sometimes you'd use a better clock as reference. In case there isn't a better clock available, something's age might be the best clock available.

 

Sometimes you'd use direct measurements. How do we measure the age of the universe?

 

If time is the phase of an oscillation, it can also be the phase of a lifetime, for something that ages steadily and reliably. Not all things age consistently or with easily measured phases.

 

 

I'm nit-picking. I'd agree that time is the phase of an oscillation -- except when it's not.

 

Time is the phase of an oscillation; that's a duration. We use oscillators because it's convenient, but people have used non-cyclical devices for time interval measurements, such as candles and hourglasses. In accelerator labs one uses coaxial cables — where I worked they were marked in nanoseconds rather than meters because one needs to account for signal delay.

As I trace farther back in the conversation I see you've already covered all this. Oscillation is not the essence of time (ie. its definition), just a requirement of a useful clock.

[swansont]

Sometimes you'd use a better clock as reference. In case there isn't a better clock available, something's age might be the best clock available.

 

Sometimes you'd use direct measurements. How do we measure the age of the universe?

 

If time is the phase of an oscillation, it can also be the phase of a lifetime, for something that ages steadily and reliably. Not all things age consistently or with easily measured phases.

 

 

I'm nit-picking. I'd agree that time is the phase of an oscillation -- except when it's not.

 

The point I was getting at is that we reference our measurements to seconds or years — units defined in terms of oscillators — even when we measure an interval using some other method.

[Dovada]

By definition our knowledge of time is based on the fact that it exists and is flowing. If T=S/V then as the velocity varies so will the equated resultant time value vary.

 

From this same logic any oscillator used in a clock whether atomic or not will also vary using velocity. This invalidates our attempts to measure time flow accurately using the physical properties of matter when our velocity is changing.

 

Our model of atomic physics does not yet accept that cosmic velocity is also a valid component of our atomic structure resonance. This means we have a lot to learn and understand yet, as time will vary in every cosmic location which has different cosmic velocities to our own.

[The time Traveller]

Thankyou some one who gets it

By definition our knowledge of time is based on the fact that it exists and is flowing. If T=S/V then as the velocity varies so will the equated resultant time value vary.

 

From this same logic any oscillator used in a clock whether atomic or not will also vary using velocity. This invalidates our attempts to measure time flow accurately using the physical properties of matter when our velocity is changing.

 

Our model of atomic physics does not yet accept that cosmic velocity is also a valid component of our atomic structure resonance. This means we have a lot to learn and understand yet, as time will vary in every cosmic location which has different cosmic velocities to our own.

[The time Traveller]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

[Allan Zade]

Well colleagues! I think it’s the best time to continue our discussion. There is one more publication now that has business with the best question in the world about the nature of Time. You can see it right here:

 

 

 

 

http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1012.php?rp=P10285

 

 

 

It’s the finish line in a very long discussion of an intriguing question. Humankind “was born” with that question and now we have answer on it! Enjoy!

 

Obviously we can discuss a double device experiment here!

 

 

[Allan Zade]

It looks like nobody is able to say anything after that publication. Whole world is changed forever with one straight impact.