The problem with mathematics and time

[The time Traveller]

This in some sense makes sense and in other cases dose not fit the model.

 

this would imply that you are only allowing for certain energy variations to fit the model and the other frequency’s ore vibrations between would not exist and there for would not factor in the equation.

 

but if you was to list say 1 to10 then you have to take into account that say 3 and a half dose exist and if this number doesn’t fit the model then one would think there was a problem with the model in the first place.

 

there would also be other frequency’s of light that would not fit in to the maths but they clearly exist.

 

its of my opium that if all isn’t taken into account then there is a flaw in the maths then only some of the answers will be correct.

 

it doesn’t take into account a lot of the actions on the quantum level

 

 

[Daedalus]

This in some sense makes sense and in other cases dose not fit the model.

 

this would imply that you are only allowing for certain energy variations to fit the model and the other frequency's ore vibrations between would not exist and there for would not factor in the equation.

 

but if you was to list say 1 to10 then you have to take into account that say 3 and a half dose exist and if this number doesn't fit the model then one would think there was a problem with the model in the first place.

 

there would also be other frequency's of light that would not fit in to the maths but they clearly exist.

 

its of my opium that if all isn't taken into account then there is a flaw in the maths then only some of the answers will be correct.

 

it doesn't take into account a lot of the actions on the quantum level

 

I'm still in college working on my degree in Physics. I'm 32 years old and decided to do a career switch from software engineering to pursue my love for Physics. My theory of time, Temporal Uniformity, is my own work in progress. I plan to include GR and QM once I gain a better understanding of the subjects. But for now, I can only theorize on what I know : )

Edited December 26, 2011 by Daedalus

[The time Traveller]

I have to admit I am imprested with your daring to think out of the box most physicist in the academic stage are in my opium getting brainwashed into thinking this is how it is and that’s that.

 

its nice to talk with someone who isn’t afraid to go out side the comfort zone of the box and to put forward there own theories.

 

you have a good one to my friend and a fab new year

 

 

[swansont]

I think it would be fantastic if the forum had a section for people who have had there work published so they can post their publications I think it would make it most interesting and hey who knows maybe a combination of the published work might fit together and help solve some of life’s annoying problems in the field of physics is this at all possible

 

If you want to post your publications list, go right ahead.

[Daedalus]

If you want to post your publications list, go right ahead.

 

I am also curious to see this list. I'm not saying that TT's claims are not true. I just remain skeptical of such claims without mathematics or evidence to support such notions. Especially when I do not have the appropriate education or tools needed to validate such claims. It would be very interesting indeed to read about the work he has done and have published.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

The question is... has time truly dilated or was it the cycle count / frequency of the measuring device? Our experiments suggest that it was time itself that has dilated as shown by the lifespan of muons travelling near the speed of light. However, this is truly open to interpretation because we can use QM and describes these things as matter waves which also specifies a frequency and thus affected in the same manner as our above clocks. In other words, the decay of the muon has slowed due to it having a speed near that of light.

 

I'm not seeing how the description of a muon as a matter wave affects anything.

 

I would like to point out that all clocks use oscillation to measure time. This results in some form of mechanism that cycles within a given interval. Therefore our measure of time is nothing more than a count of cycles as defined by the duration of the standard cycle, the second. This results in an ambiguous definition for time as a duration and as a count of cycles as provided by a clock. We clearly mean to understand time as a duration but all clocks measure time as nothing more than a count of cycles that have been tuned to a specified frequency:

 

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.

[Daedalus]

I'm not seeing how the description of a muon as a matter wave affects anything.

 

This is purely a speculation on my part. However, I did clearly explain why I made this statement in my previous post.

 

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.

 

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]

 

or

 

[math]seconds = \frac{meters}{meters / second}[/math]

 

Our unit of measurement for distance provides the cycle and the speed determines the length of duration for the cycle. If I have a distance of 10 meters and traverse the distance at a speed of 1 meters per second, then each meter would represent a cycle (or reoccurring event) that takes place every 1.0 seconds. The frequency at which I traverse each meter would be 1 cycle per second. So we still have cycles of meters where we oscillate between the start of one meter to the next with a given frequency such that:

 

[math]time = \frac{cycles}{freq}[/math]

 

Given the above example:

 

[math]\text{10 seconds} = \frac{\text{10 cycles of meters}}{\text{1 cycle per second}}[/math]

 

The point of which was not to derail this thread. Simply to show that the problem is not with our mathematics of time, but our understanding / interpretation of it.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

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.

 

The point of which was not to derail this thread. Simply to show that the problem is not with our mathematics of time, but our understanding / interpretation of it.

 

I don't see that you have identified a problem with our understanding it.

[dimreepr]

 

The problem with mathematics is it's a man made concept and based on time

 

which is another man made concept time isn't a constant.

 

 

The only problem maths has is a workable hypothesis to give it direction.

[Daedalus]

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.

 

Then why bring up a candle, hour glass, or coaxial cables as a way people measure time?

 

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.

Each have a finite length. Candles and hour glasses do the trick but are very impractical. What you are failing to agree on is that a 10 meter track still implies oscillation if you simply go back to the start of the track and repeat the process. This is no different than sending pulses down a coaxial cable from start to finish, burning another candle, or flipping the hour glass. You still have to repeat the process. Why not bend the track into a loop? The point is definition and interpretation of mathematics. You have disregarded practicality in your examples as well leaving only definition to be applied.

 

But you seem to have missed the point of my discussion. Practicality of the time keeping device was definitely not the point. My statements were to clarify the mechanics behind the phenomenon. My measure of time need not be continuous for all applications. I can use a candle to measure the amount of time I want to read a book. I can also use an hour glass or a 10 meter track. If I wanted to read the book for a longer period of time I could add more track or move slower down the track. If I wanted to be practical, I would simply refer to your expertise and choose one of the many clocks that you monitor / maintain : ) Just guessing that some are listed here:

 

http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi

 

I never agreed with TT or his claims. I just didn't shoot them down. His claims his burden of proof. I at least back up my claims with mathematically sound examples. If you choose to not accept those claims, that is your choice to interpret the math as you see fit. But, the definitions and mechanics still apply.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Daedalus

[swansont]

Then why bring up a candle, hour glass, or coaxial cables as a way people measure time?

 

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.

 

Each have a finite length. Candles and hour glasses do the trick but are very impractical. What you are failing to agree on is that a 10 meter track still implies oscillation if you simply go back to the start of the track and repeat the process. This is no different than sending pulses down a coaxial cable from start to finish, burning another candle, or flipping the hour glass. You still have to repeat the process. Why not bend the track into a loop? The point is definition and interpretation of mathematics. You have disregarded practicality in your examples as well leaving only definition to be applied.

 

A looped system is an oscillator.

 

But you seem to have missed the point of my discussion. Practicality of the time keeping device was definitely not the point. My statements were to clarify the mechanics behind the phenomenon. My measure of time need not be continuous for all applications. I can use a candle to measure the amount of time I want to read a book. I can also use an hour glass or a 10 meter track. If I wanted to read the book for a longer period of time I could add more track or move slower down the track. If I wanted to be practical, I would simply refer to your expertise and choose one of the many clocks that you monitor / maintain : ) Just guessing that some are listed here:

 

http://tf.nist.gov/tf-cgi/servers.cgi

 

No, those are NIST servers.

 

I never agreed with TT or his claims. I just didn't shoot them down. His claims his burden of proof. I at least back up my claims with mathematically sound examples. If you choose to not accept those claims, that is your choice to interpret the math as you see fit. But, the definitions and mechanics still apply.

 

I have just disagreed with your characterization that there is some ambiguity in two different statements about time. "Duration" and "phase of an oscillation" are simply two sides of the same coin, depending on the system you are discussing.

[Daedalus]

I'm sorry swansont, I wasn't clear on the ambiguity. I did state that duration and cycles are two different things.

 

We clearly maintain that a cycle and duration are two seperate things. However, we have no clear reference for the duration of a cycle. For example, consider you have a measuring rod with clear markings that divide the rod into equal units. It is easy to confirm that the units are equally spaced because each and every mark exists within the present. This is not true for a mechanism that oscillates because there is no device which maintains its existence into the past allowing us to precisely measure the unit of duration. Therefore, we are forced to rely on a mechanism that oscillates to measure the interval of time. This truly forces us to measure time as a count of cycles because we exist in the present leaving the past behind.

What I meant to clarify is that it seems that people confuse the two. We constantly hear that time is a man made concept which refers to our units or standard cycle as I like to call it. But, we have a disconnect amongst a lot of people who refer to these cycles as time instead of the duration which it measures. The two are connected but still seperate things altogether. We have our clocks which measure time as a count of cycles and these cycles refer to a duration of time.

 

As for the time servers, I really didn't know which ones you maintain. But, I have read that you work for the government dealing with atomic clocks or something like that : ) BTW, that is a really cool job.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Daedalus

[Allan Zade]

Time is the phase of an oscillation.

 

 

How can it be"the phase of an oscillation" and the fourth dimension of the universe (at the same time)? Moreover what is relation between time flow and the phase of a process? Where is relation between a dimension and the phase of an oscillation?

 

Each recurrent process has its own phase under usual condition at any given point of time. Does it mean that all processes have their own time?

Edited December 26, 2011 by Allan Zade

[The time Traveller]

Hello again I was actually speaking out for other forum members having the option to put up a list of there publications.

 

but I have to agree I think it only fare that I put up some of my work for scrutiny.

 

I have only been published twice and that was in the world physics book.

 

I have given lectures in a number of universities in this field of new physics

 

The book I was published in goes out to only the select physicists around the world.

 

I will need a good few days to put something together and will have it ready for the new year as the mathematics and the symbolism used is quite different to what you find on a scientific calculator so I will have to scan and past my equations.

 

I will include a full explanation of the mathematical formulas so they make some sort of sense and cross references to other known physics findings regarding frequency of all the periodic table elements.

 

As this is quite relevant to some of the work

 

I think it will help you understand the formulas and equations as I have explained in my post the work I do is classified so just to let you know that the information I will release for you to read is still on going research and in know way connected to my classified work.

 

(sorry I have to make that disclaimer ).

 

this work is hopefully the proof that there is a control TAG within the electron shell and within the neutrinos shell and in fact they are not empty and its this TAG that controls the behaviour of all matter and its these TAGS that hold it all together. Including the time space relationship & GR & QM

 

And the proof of there existence.

 

From both scientific method and experimentation & mathematical means.

 

its just a different take on the work being done at CERN

 

The Large Hadron Collider.

 

All I can say is up to date I have had some very very promising results that have proven beyond a doubt that I am heading in the right direction and a large number of my fellow physicists have agreed with my finding so fare.

 

Like I said I will post the work in the new year for you to hopefully pull to bits and find the holes in it if any and I will look forwards to your comments.

 

 

[swansont]

How can it be"the phase of an oscillation" and the fourth dimension of the universe (at the same time)? Moreover what is relation between time flow and the phase of a process? Where is relation between a dimension and the phase of an oscillation?

 

Each recurrent process has its own phase under usual condition at any given point of time. Does it mean that all processes have their own time?

 

It's independent of, and orthogonal to, the spatial coordinates.

[Allan Zade]

I guess we are close to the right point of view. From the one hand we have following.

 

Time is the phase of an oscillation.

 

 

From the other hand we have quite different answer.

 

It's independent of, and orthogonal to, the spatial coordinates.

 

 

Obviously that is modern point of view on nature of time. But I'd like to see you point of view on that matter. I know definition of time from modern universities. They understand it as the special dimension that is orthogonal to the spatial coordinates, exactly as you say.

 

But that definition is useful only for mathematical calculations and not enough for physics.

 

As you can see from the two quotes mentioned above you have two different answers on the same question. But the grave problem is that your answers are irrelevant to each other and you need to invent new answers again and again when you have each new question about nature of time.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Allan Zade

[michel123456]

It's independent of, and orthogonal to, the spatial coordinates.

 

It is orthogonal, but is it independent?

For C to remain constant, doesn't that mean that space & time are directly linked?

[swansont]

It is orthogonal, but is it independent?

For C to remain constant, doesn't that mean that space & time are directly linked?

That's in a transform between reference frames; neither length nor time are invariant. In your own frame, you are at rest

 

As you can see from the two quotes mentioned above you have two different answers on the same question. But the grave problem is that your answers are irrelevant to each other and you need to invent new answers again and again when you have each new question about nature of time.

 

Two answers to two different questions on the same topic. Is either answer untrue?

[The time Traveller]

This is because time is every were at different times and in different time frames.

 

it exists at a different time in my time frame than it dose at rest in your time frame .

 

I don't believe it follows a constant flow 123456 and so on.

 

Like the experiment with the two atomic clocks flown around the world in opposite directions to each other. And the tunnelling laser experiment

 

one gained time on it return this to would explain that time can and is being effected by outside influences.

 

and that if it was a constant every were then there should be no change to the said time on the atomic clocks.

 

And the tunnelling laser experiment is just one more example of time being effected by outside influences

 

There can only be one answer to time.

 

a red car is a red car no matter where it is its still a red car

 

Just like time it is either a constant or not constant .

 

I believe its not constant and that its woven into every single atom /electron / neutron / ????

 

That's in a transform between reference frames; neither length nor time are invariant. In your own frame, you are at rest

 

 

 

Two answers to two different questions on the same topic. Is either answer untrue?

[swansont]

This is because time is every were at different times and in different time frames.

 

it exists at a different time in my time frame than it dose at rest in your time frame .

 

I don't believe it follows a constant flow 123456 and so on.

 

Like the experiment with the two atomic clocks flown around the world in opposite directions to each other. And the tunnelling laser experiment

 

one gained time on it return this to would explain that time can and is being effected by outside influences.

 

and that if it was a constant every were then there should be no change to the said time on the atomic clocks.

 

And the tunnelling laser experiment is just one more example of time being effected by outside influences

 

There can only be one answer to time.

 

a red car is a red car no matter where it is its still a red car

 

Just like time it is either a constant or not constant .

 

I believe its not constant and that its woven into every single atom /electron / neutron / ????

 

"There can only be one answer to time" is inconsistent with much of the rest of your post. Time is not constant but neither is it arbitrary; relativity does a very adequate job of explaining what happens.

[Allan Zade]

Two answers to two different questions on the same topic. Is either answer untrue?

 

 

I'm afraid that is incorrect and both of them are untrue. The main matter here is reference between those answers. If we discuss any scientific topic we use some relation between discussing phenomena and some underlying principle.

 

We can do any answer relating to same phenomenon any possible way but all answers must keep same basis. That must be direct or indirect relation to the SAME principle. Answers become irrelevant to the discussing matter without that conjunction.

 

For example if we discuss any matter of visible light we understand that all matter has relation to propagation of the electromagnet waves. In that case all answers use this or that relation to the same underlying principle (propagation of the electromagnet waves).

 

Can you tell me your description or short explanation for any conjunction between your answers and matter of time? If you use same basis you can make conjunction between them. But that is impossible from my point of view.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Allan Zade

[swansont]

I'm afraid that is incorrect and both of them are untrue. The main matter here is reference between those answers. If we discuss any scientific topic we use some relation between discussing phenomena and some underlying principle.

 

We can do any answer relating to same phenomenon any possible way but all answers must keep same basis. That must be direct or indirect relation to the SAME principle. Answers become irrelevant to the discussing matter without that conjunction.

 

For example if we discuss any matter of visible light we understand that all matter has relation to propagation of the electromagnet waves. In that case all answers use this or that relation to the same underlying principle (propagation of the electromagnet waves).

 

Can you tell me your description or short explanation for any conjunction between your answers and matter of time? If you use same basis you can make conjunction between them. But that is impossible from my point of view.

 

[math]\omega = \frac{d\phi}{dt}[/math]

 

The frequency of a clock gives you the rate of change of the phase, which is the time. You integrate the frequency (i.e. you count the oscillations) and the result is the time. That's in the context of time being a duration — for an oscillatory system, like a clock, that's what the time is.

 

We also know from relativity that we have four-vectors in Minkowski space, such as the spacetime interval

s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - c^2t^2

 

the time component is orthogonal to the spatial components

 

"A standard basis for Minkowski space is a set of four mutually orthogonal vectors"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

 

Which parts are untrue?

[Allan Zade]

Which parts are untrue?

 

 

Conjunction between them is not true. You still don't show how those two explanations have relation to each other. So you use two different bases instead of one. As a result following question is still unanswered. What is relation between phase and dimension in your definition of time?

Edited December 27, 2011 by Allan Zade

[The time Traveller]

hey this topic was just about opening everybody’s eyes to some of the inconstancy’s that exist with in physics and mathematics and what a better way to do that than start a topic about on of those problems.

 

time and mathematics its one of the most understood and misunderstood concepts to date.

 

we may all be right in thinking that our own theories are correct and comparing our ideas with other well established theories to be the correct answer but we may never truly know.

 

The inconsistencies in the subject time and mathematics clearly do come up again and again in one form ore another .

 

And as to GR should we go there or not ha ha ha

 

"There can only be one answer to time" is inconsistent with much of the rest of your post. Time is not constant but neither is it arbitrary; relativity does a very adequate job of explaining what happens.

[swansont]

Conjunction between them is not true. You still don't show how those two explanations have relation to each other. So you use two different bases instead of one. As a result following question is still unanswered. What is relation between phase and dimension in your definition of time?

 

 

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?