Explanation of Time

[SamBridge]

I'm telling you, as a second person giving feedback, that your post was unclear,

That's fine if there's a part of it that's not clear, but I can't respond in the right way when someone doesn't bother to elaborate what they want, regardless of how clear or unclear my post is.

Edited April 27, 2014 by SamBridge

[michel123456]

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?

Fine

Because I had a question in post #20 that was by-passed.

[SamBridge]

Fine

Because I had a question in post #20 that was by-passed.

You're right, but you also didn't specified which of my own articles you were referring to and I never posted the link about squeeze mapping that you seem to have said I did, and squeeze mapping isn't even referred to in the wiki article I posted if that's the one you're talking about. The 3 non-wiki research papers I presented show the effects of the Lorentz transformation can remain invariant in a gravitational field and the other 3 wiki ones have to do with showing time is linear. But you think u*v = x'*t' and x'*t' = the speed of light? Are you trying to say there isn't a constant speed that's approached? There's also another way to model the effect by using the mass-energy equivalence formula to say E=ymc^2, which shows that as something accelerates towards the speed of light, it gains more and more mass, thus making it take more energy to accelerate to even closer to the speed of light in such a way that an accelerating object hyperbolically approaches c, which matches up with the research articles I posted because mass creates a rotation of space-time as well via gravitation in which the Lorentz transformations can remain invariant which is further reiterated by the equivalence principal in which being in a gravitational field is the same as being in an accelerated frame of reference. Are you asking "where is the factor that keeps an object from accelerating past the speed of light"? It's in the gamma factor where you divide by c^2, it's already assumed the speed of light is constant from experiments and then the Lorentz transformations are considered the consequence of that constant and then Einstein extrapolated explanations for that constant with general relativity and mass-energy equivalence and the equivalence principal.

Edited April 27, 2014 by SamBridge

[michel123456]

You're right, but you also didn't specified which of my own articles you were referring to and I never posted the link about squeeze mapping that you seem to have said I did, and squeeze mapping isn't even referred to in the wiki article I posted if that's the one you're talking about. The 3 non-wiki research papers I presented show the effects of the Lorentz transformation can remain invariant in a gravitational field and the other 3 wiki ones have to do with showing time is linear. But you think u*v = x'*t' and x'*t' = the speed of light? Are you trying to say there isn't a constant speed that's approached? There's also another way to model the effect by using the mass-energy equivalence formula to say E=ymc^2, which shows that as something accelerates towards the speed of light, it gains more and more mass, thus making it take more energy to accelerate to even closer to the speed of light in such a way that an accelerating object hyperbolically approaches c, which matches up with the research articles I posted because mass creates a rotation of space-time as well via gravitation in which the Lorentz transformations can remain invariant which is further reiterated by the equivalence principal in which being in a gravitational field is the same as being in an accelerated frame of reference. Are you asking "where is the factor that keeps an object from accelerating past the speed of light"? It's in the gamma factor where you divide by c^2, it's already assumed the speed of light is constant from experiments and then the Lorentz transformations are considered the consequence of that constant and then Einstein extrapolated explanations for that constant with general relativity and mass-energy equivalence and the equivalence principal.

I am sorry if I didn't follow exactly your route.

I was interested in your link about hyperbolic rotation. (bottom line of your post #6.) Hyperbolic rotation redirects to squeeze mapping in Wikipedia.

 

I didn't understand the relation between hyperbolic rotation and Lorentz transform.

hence my question in post @20.

It is technical, not intended to argue against your points. Only a matter of enlightment.

Edited April 27, 2014 by michel123456

[SamBridge]

I am sorry if I didn't follow exactly your route.

I was interested in your link about hyperbolic rotation. (bottom line of your post #6.) Hyperbolic rotation redirects to squeeze mapping in Wikipedia.

 

I didn't understand the relation between hyperbolic rotation and Lorentz transform.

hence my question in post @20.

 

My guess is that you are actually dealing with the "Lorentz Boost" which is a linear transformation that doesn't involve a rotation. The difference is that a rotation involves all dimensions in spacetime and the boost only deals with the effects in one direction of motion, it's essentially a restricted transformation.

Edited April 27, 2014 by SamBridge

[michel123456]

My guess is that you are actually dealing with the "Lorentz Boost" which is a linear transformation that doesn't involve a rotation. The difference is that a rotation involves all dimensions in spacetime and the boost only deals with the effects in one direction of motion, it's essentially a restricted transformation.

Maybe.

I am lost.

Can someone explain this paragraph? And the relation it has with hyperbolic rotation?

 

Relativistic spacetime

Select (0,0) for a "here and now" in a spacetime. Light radiant left and right through this central event tracks two lines in the spacetime, lines that can be used to give coordinates to events away from (0,0). Trajectories of lesser velocity track closer to the original timeline (0,t). Any such velocity can be viewed as a zero velocity under a squeeze mapping called a Lorentz boost. This insight follows from a study of split-complex number multiplications and the "diagonal basis" which corresponds to the pair of light lines. Formally, a squeeze preserves the hyperbolic metric expressed in the form xy; in a different coordinate system. This application in the theory of relativity was noted in 1912 by Wilson and Lewis (see footnote p. 401 of reference), by Werner Greub in the 1960s, and in 1985 by Louis Kauffman. Furthermore, Wolfgang Rindler, in his popular textbook on relativity, used the squeeze mapping form of Lorentz transformations in his demonstration of their characteristic property (see equation 29.5 on page 45 of the 1969 edition, or equation 2.17 on page 37 of the 1977 edition, or equation 2.16 on page 52 of the 2001 edition).

 

Edited April 27, 2014 by michel123456

[studiot]

 

I am lost.

 

 

So am I

 

What does all this stuff have to do with the original post?

[michel123456]

I don't like when I don't understand something. You posted about relativity and hyperbolic rotation, my question is about hyperbolic rotation and relativity.

 

What I understand step by step

Relativistic spacetime
Select (0,0) for a "here and now" in a spacetime.

 

(0,0) are coordinates of Space and Time, (x,t) where t coordinates are on the vertical.

 

Light radiant left and right through this central event tracks two lines in the spacetime, lines that can be used to give coordinates to events away from (0,0). Trajectories of lesser velocity track closer to the original timeline (0,t).

 

OK that looks like a Minkowski spacetime diagram

 

 

Any such velocity can be viewed as a zero velocity under a squeeze mapping called a Lorentz boost.

 

Let's say O.K. it is about a change of coordinates system where the grid has been squeezed in one direction and stretched on the other by the same amount.

 

This insight follows from a study of split-complex number multiplications and the "diagonal basis" which corresponds to the pair of light lines.

 

Irrelevant

 

Formally, a squeeze preserves the hyperbolic metric expressed in the form xy; in a different coordinate system.

 

That's the part I wonder about.

If I understand correctly. It means the values on the x axis have been multiplied by a number N and the values on the T axis have been divided by the same N number, where the N number is the "hyperbolic metric"

IOW the values xt= constant

Which I see as not evident in litterature.

In litterature I see x/t= constant for Speed Of Light.

Edited April 27, 2014 by michel123456

[ACG52]

That's fine if there's a part of it that's not clear, but I can't respond in the right way when someone doesn't bother to elaborate what they want, regardless of how clear or unclear my post is.

I quoted you saying this:

 

 

 

events are measured appears to rotate via acceleration or gravitation.

That's what I want a citation for.

 

You need to work on your sentence structure, which is quite confusing.

[SamBridge]

I quoted you saying this:

 

That's what I want a citation for.

 

You need to work on your sentence structure, which is quite confusing.

My sentence structure doesn't matter anyway if you aren't even bothering to be specific. If you purposely disregarded the 3 additional research papers I provided then I have no idea what you're asking for.

 

I don't like when I don't understand something. You posted about relativity and hyperbolic rotation, my question is about hyperbolic rotation and relativity.

 

What I understand step by step

(0,0) are coordinates of Space and Time, (x,t) where t coordinates are on the vertical.

 

 

OK that looks like a Minkowski spacetime diagram

 

 

Let's say O.K. it is about a change of coordinates system where the grid has been squeezed in one direction and stretched on the other by the same amount.

Irrelevant

 

That's the part I wonder about.

If I understand correctly. It means the values on the x axis have been multiplied by a number N and the values on the T axis have been divided by the same N number, where the N number is the "hyperbolic metric"

IOW the values xt= constant

Which I see as not evident in litterature.

In litterature I see x/t= constant for Speed Of Light.

Based on what I know, in a Lorentz "boost" you only have inertial frames moving at constant velocities and their direction of motion is parallel to a spacial axis. If someone is moving at a constant velocity in an inertial frame in a straight line, there's no increasing rotation, so the factor of contraction and dilation stays the same between events that they measure of objects along their direction of motion, so that's why the boost is linear, but the full transformation isn't. My guess is that's why you get conflicting results, one refers to a coordinate system actually changing degrees of rotation between frames, and in another instance it's just talking about a boost.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2014 by SamBridge

[Fred Champion]

 

 

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.

I must have not understood your question. I stated: "The exclusion principle refers to the states of objects." You asked "Did Pauli claim this?". My answer is I don't know whether Pauli himself considered the principle to be applicable to objects (or ordinary matter) generally. Today the principle is considered to apply to ordinary matter. The objects we can observe are made of ordinary matter and so I think it is correct to say that the principle applies to the states of such objects.

 

Again, my point was to show that the state of any object has no "time" component and is not dependent on any "time" action and thus "time" can not be infered from the state of an object.

 

Your statement that the principle "applies throughout time" assumes time as a phenomenon. My argument is that there is no evidence of time in any given state of any object. The inference we make over a set of states is because we recognize the changes in those states. That inference is possible only because of intelligence (memory).

 

I have seen nothing that would imply that non-intelligent objects experience time. Now, if stones do not experience "time" what makes us think that there is anything to experience? If there is anything to experience, everything, intelligent or not, should experience it. Unless you can show that "time" is some sort of actor or reactor, I say it just isn't there.

[SamBridge]

 

I have seen nothing that would imply that non-intelligent objects experience time.

Um, clocks?

[swansont]

 

I have seen nothing that would imply that non-intelligent objects experience time. Now, if stones do not experience "time" what makes us think that there is anything to experience? If there is anything to experience, everything, intelligent or not, should experience it. Unless you can show that "time" is some sort of actor or reactor, I say it just isn't there.

 

You've not seen a plant or animal grow?

 

Time doesn't have to be a physical thing (actor or reactor) in order to be a real phenomenon. There's a whole host of such concepts in physics.

[studiot]

 

I must have not understood your question.

 

No I don't think you do now either.

 

I was and still am (gently) challenging your understanding of the Pauli exclusion principle, I offered further detail by noting that the PEP only applies to fermions.

 

 

Bosons contrast with fermions, which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (see Pauli exclusion principle).

Since bosons with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with matter (although in quantum physics the distinction between the two concepts is not clear cut).

 

The above was extracted from

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

 

 

there is no need of any reference to change or the "passage of time" or "time" in the state.

 

Why not? If what do you understand by state?

 

I understand it to be a list of parameters, some of which are a function of a physical variable we call time.

 

Without this variable the parameters themselves would not exist so how could the state based on them exist?

 

For instance two of the parameters in Pauli's list are angular momentuma and spin.

Both are the time rate of change of something.

Edited April 28, 2014 by studiot

[SamBridge]

 

Time doesn't have to be a physical thing (actor or reactor) in order to be a real phenomenon.

Well, that depends on how you define "physical." We can't observe a dimension itself, but it still has physical relevance as existing the universe and it can be affected by physically measurable forces like gravity and rotation. If it didn't physically exist, how would you define its existence?

Edited April 28, 2014 by SamBridge

[swansont]

Well, that depends on how you define "physical." We can't observe a dimension itself, but it still has physical relevance as existing the universe and it can be affected by physically measurable forces like gravity and rotation. If it didn't physically exist, how would you define its existence?

 

As you say, it depends on how you define physical. Specifically, is it assumed that "real" means "physically existing" and vice-versa?

 

Time is not an object. You can't pick it up and hand it to someone else. It's also not an interaction. That excludes some possibilities, but we have a large supply of concepts in physics for which this is also true.

 

The first order of business, I've found, is see if the statement changes if you replace it with length (or width, or height)

 

I have seen nothing that would imply that non-intelligent objects experience length. Now, if stones do not experience "length" what makes us think that there is anything to experience? If there is anything to experience, everything, intelligent or not, should experience it. Unless you can show that "length" is some sort of actor or reactor, I say it just isn't there.

 

Is length an "actor or reactor"? I would say no; length doesn't "do" anything. Do unintelligent thing experience length? Yes, I would say they do, but that was trivially true of time as well. The claimant has not responded to this yet.

 

So length is one other of these things. Does length physically exist? (Thus, I wonder, what the beef is with time.) After that we can discuss momentum, energy, electric fields, etc. The list is long.

[Fred Champion]

 

As you say, it depends on how you define physical. Specifically, is it assumed that "real" means "physically existing" and vice-versa?

 

Time is not an object. You can't pick it up and hand it to someone else. It's also not an interaction. That excludes some possibilities, but we have a large supply of concepts in physics for which this is also true.

 

The first order of business, I've found, is see if the statement changes if you replace it with length (or width, or height)

 

I have seen nothing that would imply that non-intelligent objects experience length. Now, if stones do not experience "length" what makes us think that there is anything to experience? If there is anything to experience, everything, intelligent or not, should experience it. Unless you can show that "length" is some sort of actor or reactor, I say it just isn't there.

 

Is length an "actor or reactor"? I would say no; length doesn't "do" anything. Do unintelligent thing experience length? Yes, I would say they do, but that was trivially true of time as well. The claimant has not responded to this yet.

 

So length is one other of these things. Does length physically exist? (Thus, I wonder, what the beef is with time.) After that we can discuss momentum, energy, electric fields, etc. The list is long.

Length is not a phenomenon either. It is just a convenient concept for geometry. When we speak of size, we must speak of volume. Volume cannot be reduced to any lesser or more fundamental units. Many may confuse the common geometry of 3 intersecting planes (a human invention, not something discovered) with the reality of the single dimension of space we call volume. Yes, I am saying that space has only one dimension and that dimension is volume. All normal matter occupies volume. I am not aware of anything that exists in any format other than volume.

 

As for the "long list" I suggest that any parameter that is not presented (and thus cannot be observed) within a single state of an object is not existent. Anything that we describe as relative (or in relative terms) or for which we require multiple observations (to recognize change) to compute its value cannot be considered fundamental. The "long list" may include many useful concepts, but concepts are not phenomena.

[studiot]

@ Fred Champion

 

A gently nudge towards post#39

[swansont]

Length is not a phenomenon either. It is just a convenient concept for geometry. When we speak of size, we must speak of volume. Volume cannot be reduced to any lesser or more fundamental units. Many may confuse the common geometry of 3 intersecting planes (a human invention, not something discovered) with the reality of the single dimension of space we call volume. Yes, I am saying that space has only one dimension and that dimension is volume. All normal matter occupies volume. I am not aware of anything that exists in any format other than volume.

Is length then not "real"?

 

 

As for the "long list" I suggest that any parameter that is not presented (and thus cannot be observed) within a single state of an object is not existent. Anything that we describe as relative (or in relative terms) or for which we require multiple observations (to recognize change) to compute its value cannot be considered fundamental. The "long list" may include many useful concepts, but concepts are not phenomena.

Arguing whether something is real is not the same as arguing whether it's fundamental.

[Fred Champion]

 

No I don't think you do now either.

 

I was and still am (gently) challenging your understanding of the Pauli exclusion principle, I offered further detail by noting that the PEP only applies to fermions.

 

 

The above was extracted from

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

 

 

Why not? If what do you understand by state?

 

I understand it to be a list of parameters, some of which are a function of a physical variable we call time.

 

Without this variable the parameters themselves would not exist so how could the state based on them exist?

 

For instance two of the parameters in Pauli's list are angular momentuma and spin.

Both are the time rate of change of something.

I understood your "challenge". It was not obscured. I chose to avoid it. I am not a fan of any of the quantuum or particle physics. They may provide a convenient platform for some who want a more or less unified mathematical model, but I believe they do little to describe reality. I think any system that includes time as a fundamental physical variable is fundamentally flawed. I will not get into models I think have little value.

 

By your own definition, the parameters you reference are computed, not observed. "Time rate of change" of anything requires requires multiple observations and a reference to change in other objects, not simply an observation of a single state of an object.

 

How do we define a "second"? We count and remember (record) changes in something, perhaps the swings of a pendulum or the emissions of a specific atom. Whatever method is used it is always an arbitrary metric and is consistent only under very specific conditions. The key term is "arbitrary". Arbitrary is not fundamental.

 

To me, the state of an object - note the singular term "the" - is not computed over multiple states. It is what is presented by the object and can be observed. We may observe place and volume and in order to know that we observe something specific we must know what we observe. State reduces to what it is, where it is and the volume. If the "what" is more than one unit, the where and volume become somewhat subjective. The point of eliminating composit objects and reducing observation of state to a single unit is to demonstrate that there is no dependence on nor inference to time at any fundamental level. State is the way is "is", not the way it "was" or the way it "will" be.

[swansont]

 

How do we define a "second"? We count and remember (record) changes in something, perhaps the swings of a pendulum or the emissions of a specific atom. Whatever method is used it is always an arbitrary metric and is consistent only under very specific conditions. The key term is "arbitrary". Arbitrary is not fundamental.

 

 

Again, fundamental and real are not synonymous, but even more, I think this means that nothing is fundamental according to your use of the term. Our unit for volume is arbitrary as well, since it's based on an arbitrary choice for length. Mass is an arbitrary metric. Are there any parameters that aren't arbitrary?

[Fred Champion]

Is length then not "real"?

 

 

 

Arguing whether something is real is not the same as arguing whether it's fundamental.

Of course length is not "real", not a "physical reality", not a phenomenon. It is a term we use to describe the separation between two objects, the two objects on either end of a "line" of objects. That separation is in terms of the volume occupied by objects.

 

The concept of a line is useful in geometry, but there is no line (as defined in geometry) existent. A "real" line would be a group of objects (with volume) arranged "next" to one another. I will not define the terms "straight" and "curved".

 

I accept that you are correct about real and fundamental except when we discuss state.

 

Again, fundamental and real are not synonymous, but even more, I think this means that nothing is fundamental according to your use of the term. Our unit for volume is arbitrary as well, since it's based on an arbitrary choice for length. Mass is an arbitrary metric. Are there any parameters that aren't arbitrary?

Place and volume are fundamental. Space has volume and place in space is absolute. Einstein told us this (in a round about way) when he said the speed of light is constant (in space). The units we use are arbitrary, but this is true only because we have discovered no smallest unit of volume and currently have no accepted way of connecting position (of objects) to place in space.

 

The fundamentals of space is another topic, not directly a part of this thread.

[swansont]

Of course length is not "real", not a "physical reality", not a phenomenon. It is a term we use to describe the separation between two objects, the two objects on either end of a "line" of objects. That separation is in terms of the volume occupied by objects.

Two point object separated by a line has no volume to consider. For two non-point objects, the thickness of the line will determine the volume, so the separation would be arbitrary. Doesn't seem like a very useful reality.

 

 

The concept of a line is useful in geometry, but there is no line (as defined in geometry) existent. A "real" line would be a group of objects (with volume) arranged "next" to one another. I will not define the terms "straight" and "curved".

 

I accept that you are correct about real and fundamental except when we discuss state.

 

Place and volume are fundamental. Space has volume and place in space is absolute. Einstein told us this (in a round about way) when he said the speed of light is constant (in space). The units we use are arbitrary, but this is true only because we have discovered no smallest unit of volume and currently have no accepted way of connecting position (of objects) to place in space.

 

The fundamentals of space is another topic, not directly a part of this thread.

"Place in space" being absolute is pretty much the opposite of what Einstein said, so this is pretty much moot.

[studiot]

 

I understood your "challenge". It was not obscured. I chose to avoid it. I am not a fan of any of the quantuum or particle physics. ..................................................... I will not get into models I think have little value.

 

So I'm wasting my time discussing with you then?

 

You are the one who introduced the Pauli Exclusion Principle to this thread. (post#14)

 

The PEP concerns some quantites that include time in their definition.

 

Period.

 

You cannot have it both ways.

Edited April 29, 2014 by studiot

[Fred Champion]

 

Two point object separated by a line has no volume to consider. For two non-point objects, the thickness of the line will determine the volume, so the separation would be arbitrary. Doesn't seem like a very useful reality.

 

 

 

"Place in space" being absolute is pretty much the opposite of what Einstein said, so this is pretty much moot.

There is no real thing such as a "point object". Without something with volume, there is nothing to observe. To simplify separation, measurement is made with a yardstick (or an acceptable alternative). The yardstick is made of real things which have volume and the scale on the yardstick is in terms of the real things which make up the yardstick. As you say, the volume will be determined by the thickness of the line, and the minimum thickness of any line will be a single unit (atom) of whatever makes up the line.

 

If we accept that the speed of light is constant everywhere and in all directions we must accept that the medium through which the wave propagates (space) is not in motion (or that space in its entirety moves as one body, perhaps within some other medium which we have not discovered). Space is the constant frame of reference for light. Without this basic concept there is no reference for the apparent relativity of changes in moving objects (as in thought experiments using clocks).

 

So I'm wasting my time discussing with you then?

 

You are the one who introduced the Pauli Exclusion Principle to this thread. (post#14)

 

The PEP concerns some quantites that include time in their definition.

 

Period.

 

You cannot have it both ways.

I hope you will not expect me to argue for or against any particular part of any model or theory for which I have no interest. I see that you have some passion for the subject, however I am totally neutral on whatever details are within. As I have already said, I reference the Pauli exclusion principle as the basis for a expecting a unique state for every object, nothing more. Observation seems to match this expectation. Do you think there is a better basis for unique states of matter?