Explanation of Time

[HRS]

Mathematically, in a simple a logical sense, time just does not seem correct to me. Despite the fact that I observe it.

 

But in order to move from one second to another, we have to travel half that distance in time. And half that distance. And half that distance. To infinity. So theoretically, we cannot move forward in time. We would have to travel through an infinity of infinities between an infinity of intervals of time. Xeno's arrow could never have never hit it's target then. It couldn't even leave the bow by this reasoning. So time seems to be just the stitching together of brief instances of existence of matter in a certain arrangement, translating the information from one instance to the next.

 

Now of course this is all basically human reasoning, and we know how flawing that can be sometimes. If you didn't know better, you could likely go your entire life thinking the world could be flat and that the universe revolves around us. Fortunately, observation and science is ultimately fact and proof.

 

Sorry if my explanation of my thoughts was not clear. But to those who could read through the glorified delirium, can anyone tell me about how it is that time (and thus movement) is possible? Or at least explain whatever theories or such there are?

[SamBridge]

Because time is a dimension and matter moves forward about its axis as it would a spacial dimension. We see direct evidence of this when we observe special relativistic models in particle accelerators causing muons to last longer than they should in the manner predicted by special relativity due to their relative translation about the temporal axis slowing while they were traveling near the speed of light. There is also the fact that we measured clocks on a plane ticking faster when further from Earth's surface in the manner predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Essentially, we say time exists because when we model it as a dimension, the model matches up extremely accurately with experimental results.

Edited April 26, 2014 by SamBridge

[HRS]

Hmm... I see the correlation and the observable difference of the passing of time. Perhaps it is not as much of a constant as I thought. Too linear of a perception I suppose. Then time, though, if alterable in a manner similar to the manipulation of the location of matter, when experienced at high velocity (if you have an outside reference point)?

[SamBridge]

Perhaps it is not as much of a constant as I thought.

Definitely not, varying measurements of time is part of the basis for post-Newtonian relativity.

 

Too linear of a perception I suppose.

No time is still linear on it's own, it's just that the entire coordinate system in which events are measured appears to rotate via acceleration or gravitation.

[ACG52]

 

 

No time is still linear on it's own, it's just that the entire coordinate system in which events are measured appears to rotate via acceleration or gravitation.

Do you have a citation for this?

[SamBridge]

Do you have a citation for this?

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

 

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)

 

Time on its own is a dimensional line orthogonal to all spacial dimensions and in general is said to be moving in the same direction between events, i.e. forward, supported in large by the fact that entropy always increases and breaks time symmetry.

 

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

 

"The Lorentz transformation is a linear transformation. It may include a rotation of space;"

 

"They describe only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space."

Edited April 26, 2014 by SamBridge

[Christophe]

One could also consider to wonder what the total distance even is? We can travel half the distance to infinity and never reach that particular destination, but what if our perception of distance is that movement, what seems to be half that distance is from my room to the kitchen, and then another half would be my movement from the kitchen to the garage, and so forth.

We may "see" we are traveling a complete path from point A to point B, but are we really fulfilling that particular path that we are restricted by in terms of time.
Maybe we simply have incorporated a tolerance of this limitation in our physical dimension by "arbitrarily" defining what path A to path B will "look" like to us, but not in relation to time in its own dimension.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Christophe

[ACG52]

 

 

events are measured appears to rotate via acceleration or gravitation.

This is what I want a citation for, not three articles on wiki that have nothing to do with my question.

[SamBridge]

This is what I want a citation for, not three articles on wiki that have nothing to do with my question

If you don't think the articles relate to your question which was in regard to my content, I suggest you learn about relativity and look at the articles so that you have some comprehension of the material to see that they relate. It's pretty strange you only counted three articles though.

One could also consider to wonder what the total distance even is?

Yes, distance is also relative.

 

We can travel half the distance to infinity and never reach that particular destination,

Though I have no idea what that means.

 

We may "see" we are traveling a complete path from point A to point B, but are we really fulfilling that particular path that we are restricted by in terms of time.

Well spacetime has both space and time, you can't describe special relativistic effects without both, and you can't put all of space transformations into terms of temporal transformations, that's why there's a whole host of variables that deal with the transformations of time and space in the Lorentz Transformation and other relativistic effects.

Edited April 26, 2014 by SamBridge

[michel123456]

To me the first step to understanding time is the following:

 

When you see an object displacing, you see it moving through space i.e. the object changes position in Space. It changes coordinates in Space.

 

In fact, the object also made a displacement in Time. It changes coordinate in Time.

 

In exactly the same manner, all objects, including ourselves, are displacing in Time. Even when standing still.

 

This simple first step in understanding time is so complicated and disputed that I have to stop here.

There are indeed a lot of people who disagree with this simple statement: that we are changing coordinates in Time.

Edited April 26, 2014 by michel123456

[Fred Champion]

I invite you to comment on my post #288 under the thread "Basic understanding of time" in which I posted:

 

"I conclude that there is no phenomenon which we can call time."

[StringJunky]

I invite you to comment on my post #288 under the thread "Basic understanding of time" in which I posted:

 

"I conclude that there is no phenomenon which we can call time."

Two objects cannot simultaneously have the same spatial and temporal co-ordnates i.e. they can only be in the same place at different times or different places at the same time. Therefore one must conclude, by deduction, that a temporal dimension exists.

Edited April 26, 2014 by StringJunky

[michel123456]

Two objects cannot simultaneously have the same spatial and temporal co-ordnates i.e. they can only be in the same place at different times or different places at the same time. Therefore one must conclude, by deduction, that a temporal dimension exists.

Yes. in fact Time is the thing that definites uniqueness.

 

If it was possible for object O to travel at infinite velocity from point A to B, one would observe object O at 2 different places at the same time. If the observer is human, he will describe that there are 2 objects O1 and O2, because the observer have decided as an axiom that it is impossible for object O to be in 2 different places at the same time.

 

If one erases the concept of time, it should be possible to have the same object O at different spaces coordinates.

Like this

O O O O O O

 

Which looks crazy, because all Forum members will say "no, it is wrong, you have wrtitten down different O's next to each other"

[Fred Champion]

Two objects cannot simultaneously have the same spatial and temporal co-ordnates i.e. they can only be in the same place at different times or different places at the same time. Therefore one must conclude, by deduction, that a temporal dimension exists.

I think you mis-state Pauli. The exclusion principle refers to the states of objects. The passage of time is not part of their states, and what we call a particular time is just a reference to their state. That state is only "now" and, since that state includes a postition in the universe and the objects' relationship to everything, it is unique. That state, for the moment it is recognized, requires no reference to anything other than the state of the objects included; there is no need of any reference to change or the "passage of time" or "time" in the state. I don't see the deduction you describe.

[studiot]

 

I think you mis-state Pauli. The exclusion principle refers to the states of objects.

 

Did Pauli claim this?

 

It is not part of quantum theory, in fact it is contrary to quantum theory, which permits interpenetration of 'object', subject to Pauli's rules.

[swansont]

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

 

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)

 

Time on its own is a dimensional line orthogonal to all spacial dimensions and in general is said to be moving in the same direction between events, i.e. forward, supported in large by the fact that entropy always increases and breaks time symmetry.

 

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

 

"The Lorentz transformation is a linear transformation. It may include a rotation of space;"

 

"They describe only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space."

 

You specifically mentioned "rotate via acceleration or gravitation. " Lorentz is dependent on just speed.

I think you mis-state Pauli. The exclusion principle refers to the states of objects. The passage of time is not part of their states, and what we call a particular time is just a reference to their state. That state is only "now" and, since that state includes a postition in the universe and the objects' relationship to everything, it is unique. That state, for the moment it is recognized, requires no reference to anything other than the state of the objects included; there is no need of any reference to change or the "passage of time" or "time" in the state. I don't see the deduction you describe.

 

One need not invoke Pauli, per se. It's true of macroscopic objects. You and a car can't be arbitrarily co-located without it being … messy.

[SamBridge]

 

You specifically mentioned "rotate via acceleration or gravitation. " Lorentz is dependent on just speed.

An object must accelerate in order to get to a new speed where the relativistic degree of rotation is higher, and I was referring to the transformations as a function of velocity, allowing the effects to vary with the changing of speed, implying that as you observe something accelerate to near the speed of light, you notice a greater and greater relative degree of rotation that creates greater contraction and dilation. And, you can model a version of the lorentz transformation, the nearly exactly same phenomena of length contraction and time dilation, in a gravitational field http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0309023 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181993_f(T)_gravity_theories_and_local_Lorentz_transformation http://cds.cern.ch/record/641106/files/0309023.pdf

Which I would postulate has something to do with the equivalence principal. Conceptually, the only thing where predictions might diverge is with something like a black hole. If you can have a gravitational field that exceeds the maximum observable relative rotation of space-time, and you use the equivalence principal, I don't think you're going to get a good result that suggests you can accelerate to past the speed of light, though both instances don't deal with experimental results of super-luminal velocities and have no real model for such. With receding galaxies, you do redshift until you become invisible almost like you would when approaching a black hole I suppose, but they are still different effects of space.

Edited April 26, 2014 by SamBridge

[swansont]

An object must accelerate in order to get to a new speed where the relativistic degree of rotation is higher, and I was referring to the transformations as a function of velocity, allowing the effects to vary with the changing of speed, implying that as you observe something accelerate to near the speed of light, you notice a greater and greater relative degree of rotation that creates greater contraction and dilation. And, you can model a version of the lorentz transformation, the nearly exactly same phenomena of length contraction and time dilation, in a gravitational field http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0309023 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181993_f(T)_gravity_theories_and_local_Lorentz_transformation http://cds.cern.ch/record/641106/files/0309023.pdf

 

 

I suspect that's closer to what was expected when the request for citations was originally presented.

[SamBridge]

 

I suspect that's closer to what was expected when the request for citations was originally presented.

To some extent but not exactly. The 4th wiki article was about the Lorentz transformation and already refers to the phenomena as a hyperbolic rotation of spacetime coordinates. He also said he only counted 3 articles, somehow disregarding the only article (the 4th one) that actually had to do with sapcetime rotation. I'm not entirely sure what he was asking about, but he quoted the part about time being linear, so I showed him time was linear, and mentioned space-time rotation which I linked to, and assumed he already possessed knowledge that it's effects are often used to describe those that occur in gravitational fields since he didn't make an effort to specify exactly what about the scenario he wanted evidence for. It isn't necessarily a matter of knowing relativity, but rather how to communicate in any sort of effective manner, and I have no way of knowing the difference when he doesn't make an effort to elaborate.

Edited April 27, 2014 by SamBridge

[michel123456]

To some extent but not exactly. The 4th wiki article was about the Lorentz transformation and already refers to the phenomena as a hyperbolic rotation of spacetime coordinates. He also said he only counted 3 articles, somehow disregarding the only article (the 4th one) that actually had to do with sapcetime rotation. I'm not entirely sure what he was asking about, but he quoted the part about time being linear, so I showed him time was linear, and mentioned space-time rotation which I linked to, and assumed he already possessed knowledge that it's effects are often used to describe those that occur in gravitational fields since he didn't make an effort to specify exactly what about the scenario he wanted evidence for. It isn't necessarily a matter of knowing relativity, but rather how to communicate in any sort of effective manner, and I have no way of knowing the difference when he doesn't make an effort to elaborate.

Question:

I don't understand the article.

In your link about Hyperbolic rotation it is explained that

For a fixed positive real number r, the mapping

(x, y) → (rx, y/r )

is the squeeze mapping with parameter r. Since

is a hyperbola, if u = rx and v = y/r, then uv = xy and the points of the image of the squeeze mapping are on the same hyperbola as (x,y) is. For this reason it is natural to think of the squeeze mapping as a hyperbolic rotation, as did Émile Borel in 1913, by analogy with circular rotations which preserve circles.

 

The part

 

is not clear where to find in the paragraph about Relativistic Spacetime, less in the link about Lorentz boost.

 

About Lorentz boost it is stated that

Boost in the x-direction

These are the simplest forms. The Lorentz transformation for frames in standard configuration can be shown to be (see for example ^[10] and ^[11]):

where:

• v is the relative velocity between frames in the x-direction,
• c is the speed of light,
• is the Lorentz factor (Greek lowercase gamma),
• is the velocity coefficient (Greek lowercase beta), again for the x-direction.

 

If I understand clearly, putting everything together (hyperbolic rotation & Lorentz boost) I'd expect to find somewhere the following

 

x't';=constant

Which is not evident.

[Fred Champion]

 

Did Pauli claim this?

 

It is not part of quantum theory, in fact it is contrary to quantum theory, which permits interpenetration of 'object', subject to Pauli's rules.

 

 

One need not invoke Pauli, per se. It's true of macroscopic objects. You and a car can't be arbitrarily co-located without it being … messy.

The point was (is) that the state of an object provides no link to any sort of deduction about time. The formal statement of Pauli that I have seen does not include "at the same time", or any other reference to time, because a reference to time is neither necessary nor proper.

 

In order for the state of an object to link to time it would have to include the recognition of some sort of change (velocity, momentum,etc) and change is recognized only over two or more states. A correct description of state will include only one state (the one described) and not others.

 

The state of an object is much like the photo of a clock. While a series of such photos may imply an intelligence (with the necessary memory) capable of recognizing change, it does not imply any phenomenon beyond that, and a single photo of a clock provides no indication of change at all.

[swansont]

To some extent but not exactly.

 

That's not for you to say, it's for ACG52 to say.

 

It isn't necessarily a matter of knowing relativity, but rather how to communicate in any sort of effective manner, and I have no way of knowing the difference when he doesn't make an effort to elaborate.

This is a double-edged sword: people asking for clarification from you is a sign that you weren't being clear in the first place. And ACG52 wasn't the only one who did not see any connection to acceleration and gravitation. It's hard to argue that the connection obvious, and that omitting the explanation in the first place would count as effective communication.

The point was (is) that the state of an object provides no link to any sort of deduction about time. The formal statement of Pauli that I have seen does not include "at the same time", or any other reference to time, because a reference to time is neither necessary nor proper.

 

In order for the state of an object to link to time it would have to include the recognition of some sort of change (velocity, momentum,etc) and change is recognized only over two or more states. A correct description of state will include only one state (the one described) and not others.

 

The state of an object is much like the photo of a clock. While a series of such photos may imply an intelligence (with the necessary memory) capable of recognizing change, it does not imply any phenomenon beyond that, and a single photo of a clock provides no indication of change at all.

 

I will reiterate: one need not invoke Pauli to make the argument.

 

What I mean by this is that the exclusion principle is not the basis of the argument. Thus, any discussion of what Pauli implies (or not) is moot.

[SamBridge]

That's not for you to say, it's for ACG52 to say.

Well it is if he doesn't make any effort to expand and disregards information relating to the topic, then it is for me to say, just like if someone is up for election and only one person votes, the election goes the way of that single vote.

 

This is a double-edged sword: people asking for clarification from you is a sign that you weren't being clear in the first place. And ACG52 wasn't the only one who did not see any connection to acceleration and gravitation.

Except that he didn't define he was asking for a connection between acceleration and gravitation, he originally quoted me saying time was linear and then requoted a phenomena that is explained by the Lorentz Transformation, which I had already posted about. It's not a double edged sword if I'm being specific and he isn't, it's just him being lazy in his post or not understanding something, so its more like a scimitar. Just look at his posts, they're one short sentence long, there's no reason to be so vague if you're seriously interested in a complicated phenomena. If he said "Can you provide evidence that the rotation of space-time caused by relative acceleration is a similar type of relative spacetime curvature that occurs inside a gravitational field?" then we wouldn't have a problem.

Edited April 27, 2014 by SamBridge

[swansont]

Look, I don't want to get into this with you. I'm telling you, as a second person giving feedback, that your post was unclear, and that's on you. If you want to be the one pointing fingers, that's your call, but there's a pattern here, and you might consider making sure you're not part of the problem before you start blaming others.

 

How about we get back on topic?

[studiot]

 

studiot, on 26 Apr 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

 

Did Pauli claim this?

 

It is not part of quantum theory, in fact it is contrary to quantum theory, which permits interpenetration of 'object', subject to Pauli's rules.

 

 

 

 

Fred Champion

 

The point was (is) that the state of an object provides no link to any sort of deduction about time. The formal statement of Pauli that I have seen does not include "at the same time", or any other reference to time, because a reference to time is neither necessary nor proper.

 

In order for the state of an object to link to time it would have to include the recognition of some sort of change (velocity, momentum,etc) and change is recognized only over two or more states. A correct description of state will include only one state (the one described) and not others.

 

The state of an object is much like the photo of a clock. While a series of such photos may imply an intelligence (with the necessary memory) capable of recognizing change, it does not imply any phenomenon beyond that, and a single photo of a clock provides no indication of change at all.

 

 

 

You have not addressed my question, which was quite specific.

 

The complete wavefunction describing a many particle state is antisymmetric under the exchange of any pair of identical fermions and symmetric under the exchange of any pair of identical bosons.

 

So first of all only fermions follow the Pauli exclusion principle, which follows directly from the above statement.

 

Secondly, the Exclusion Principle that no two identical fermions (from the same system) can have the same set of quantum numbers, applies throughout time. That is why time is not mentioned. Because it can never happen.

 

None of the foregoing prevents interpenetration, which is another name for quantum tunnelling, upon which the computer I am writing this depends for its action.

Edited April 27, 2014 by studiot