Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: amrit on 08/06/2010 11:39:11
-
Yours Amrit [???]
-
Time is part of all three possible answers in this question dependant on your point of view so the survey cannot come to a specific conclusion.
Time is part of space as seen in relativity
Time is part of the mind in or own experience of time passing.
Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
-
If we assume, as I've always done, that time for you, in your frame of reference never will be experienced different by you, no matter your velocity or mass, then it makes very much sense to me that mass never can reach the speed of light in a vacuum. As if it could you might expect 'time', even there, to be existent as a proof of that first statement. But invariant mass can't reach that timeless 'state' and so it becomes a grail not reachable. Turn that around and we find a statement saying that time are, same as mass, an undividable part of SpaceTime. Where invariant mass is, so will time be.
You cant separate it from SpaceTime.
-
Time is part of all three possible answers in this question dependant on your point of view so the survey cannot come to a specific conclusion.
I agree. The three alternatives comprise subjective and objective answers and as such are not comparable.
Objectively, time can be thought of as being at right-angles to space, in the same way that extending a one dimensional line at right angles to the axis of the line results in a two dimensional area and extending a two dimensional area at right angles to the plane of the area results in a three dimensional volume.
Time is just another direction, albeit one that we perceive as being different to the spatial directions we're familiar with. Most importantly to us though, is that time is what gives the appearance of a dynamic universe, allowing change. Without time we could have no sense of before or after, to allow and differentiate between two or more different states; rather than, for example, you being asleep at home, then waking up and going to work, then being at work etc. you'd simultaneously be asleep at home, traveling to work and being at work, all in a single super-position of states.
-
Time is part of all three possible answers in this question dependant on your point of view so the survey cannot come to a specific conclusion.
1. Time is part of space as seen in relativity
2. Time is part of the mind in or own experience of time passing.
3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
1,1 In Relativity time is not part of space X4 = ict ( t is tick of clock)
2,1 Yes time is part of the mind. Through time we experience material change i.e. motion.
3,1 At light speed and at any other speed time is nonexistent as physical reality as time exist only as mind structure.
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
You start moving with speed 3 m per second and you accelerate to the light speed. First you travel in time and at the end time is disappearing. This a deep contradiction you need to resolve.
-
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
You start moving with speed 3 m per second and you accelerate to the light speed. First you travel in time and at the end time is disappearing. This a deep contradiction you need to resolve.
I don't think SoulSurfer needs to resolve any contradition.
As I understand it, unless you have zero rest-mass, you will never accelerate to the speed of light, and if you do have zero rest-mass, you will not accelerate at all. You will depart and arrive at the same instant in time. As there was, literally, "no time", there was no acceleration.
Terms like speed, motion, velocity, acceleration, distance, all have very specific definitions. If we do not apply those definitions rigorously, we will tie ourselves in knots by debating semantics rather than physics.
-
In addition to what others have said, relativity is about how the laws of physics change at various speeds. One of the main points of the theory is that not everyone's clocks will agree. The fact that a clock on a spaceship traveling at .99c with respect to the earth seems to be much slower than a clock on the earth is a part of the theory, not a problem with the relativistic concept of time.
It is, of course, a problem for the concept of absolute time, but that's why the theory of relativity has replaced it!
-
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
You start moving with speed 3 m per second and you accelerate to the light speed. First you travel in time and at the end time is disappearing. This a deep contradiction you need to resolve.
I don't think SoulSurfer needs to resolve any contradition.
As I understand it, unless you have zero rest-mass, you will never accelerate to the speed of light, and if you do have zero rest-mass, you will not accelerate at all. You will depart and arrive at the same instant in time. As there was, literally, "no time", there was no acceleration.
Terms like speed, motion, velocity, acceleration, distance, all have very specific definitions. If we do not apply those definitions rigorously, we will tie ourselves in knots by debating semantics rather than physics.
Does photon move in space and time ot photon move in space only ? Answer with Yes or NO !. Without semantic.
-
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
You start moving with speed 3 m per second and you accelerate to the light speed. First you travel in time and at the end time is disappearing. This a deep contradiction you need to resolve.
I don't think SoulSurfer needs to resolve any contradition.
As I understand it, unless you have zero rest-mass, you will never accelerate to the speed of light, and if you do have zero rest-mass, you will not accelerate at all. You will depart and arrive at the same instant in time. As there was, literally, "no time", there was no acceleration.
Terms like speed, motion, velocity, acceleration, distance, all have very specific definitions. If we do not apply those definitions rigorously, we will tie ourselves in knots by debating semantics rather than physics.
Does photon move in space and time ot photon move in space only ? Answer with Yes or NO !. Without semantic.
If we observe photons, they move through both space and time. We can conduct many experiments to confirm this. I hope that's clear enough for you.
-
If you want a yes or no answer, you have to formulate your question more precisely. Special relativity is about observers in inertial reference frames. In your question, what are the reference frames involved, what is being measured and who is doing the measurement?
-
3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
...
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
Time does not become nonexistent for an object approaching 'c'. What happens is that the rate at which the object travels along the time axis decreases and approaches zero. It is also incorrect to say that time does not exist for an object traveling at 'c', for if you are in a car driving North, the fact that you are not driving East or West does not mean that East or West no longer exist.
-
3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
...
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
Time does not become nonexistent for an object approaching 'c'. What happens is that the rate at which the object travels along the time axis decreases and approaches zero. It is also incorrect to say that time does not exist for an object traveling at 'c', for if you are in a car driving North, the fact that you are not driving East or West does not mean that East or West no longer exist.
OK nice
so tell me: photon moves in time ?
-
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
You start moving with speed 3 m per second and you accelerate to the light speed. First you travel in time and at the end time is disappearing. This a deep contradiction you need to resolve.
I don't think SoulSurfer needs to resolve any contradition.
As I understand it, unless you have zero rest-mass, you will never accelerate to the speed of light, and if you do have zero rest-mass, you will not accelerate at all. You will depart and arrive at the same instant in time. As there was, literally, "no time", there was no acceleration.
Terms like speed, motion, velocity, acceleration, distance, all have very specific definitions. If we do not apply those definitions rigorously, we will tie ourselves in knots by debating semantics rather than physics.
Does photon move in space and time ot photon move in space only ? Answer with Yes or NO !. Without semantic.
If we observe photons, they move through both space and time. We can conduct many experiments to confirm this. I hope that's clear enough for you.
tell me one experiment that proves photon moves in time !!!
-
tell me one experiment that proves photon moves in time !!!
Go into a darkened room and turn the light on. Then turn it off. First it is dark, then it is light, then it is dark again, varying over time.
Although as I mentioned earlier, depending upon how many dimensions you're dealing with, and from how many dimensions you're looking at it, it may be that the darkened room is both simultaneously both dark and light.
-
tell me one experiment that proves photon moves in time !!!
OK. How about this?
Drive a LED from a pulse generatior. Point the LED at a phototransistor 10 mm from the LED.
Observe the voltage waveform driving the LED and the waveform produced by the phototransistor on an oscilliscope. Measure the delay.
Now move the phototransistor so that it's 110 mm from the LED and measure the delay.
The difference between the two delays is the time a photon takes to travel 100 mm.
It should be around 0.33 nanoseconds.
-
tell me one experiment that proves photon moves in time !!!
OK. How about this?
Drive a LED from a pulse generatior. Point the LED at a phototransistor 10 mm from the LED.
Observe the voltage waveform driving the LED and the waveform produced by the phototransistor on an oscilliscope. Measure the delay.
Now move the phototransistor so that it's 110 mm from the LED and measure the delay.
The difference between the two delays is the time a photon takes to travel 100 mm.
It should be around 0.33 nanoseconds.
yes clock did 0,33 nanosecond "tick" in space and photon has moved in space.....no trace of time
-
tell me one experiment that proves photon moves in time !!!
Go into a darkened room and turn the light on. Then turn it off. First it is dark, then it is light, then it is dark again, varying over time.
Although as I mentioned earlier, depending upon how many dimensions you're dealing with, and from how many dimensions you're looking at it, it may be that the darkened room is both simultaneously both dark and light.
you are turning light in space only..........and with clocks you measure numerical order of your turning of and on
Why nobody comment contradiction: at light speed time stops. This mean that time as a part of space stop running or what?
-
Most of this thread has been people commenting on your question. I think LeeE explained it quite well with his response (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=32062.msg312142#msg312142). You may not want to accept their explanations, but you can't claim that no one has tried to answer your question.
-
3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
...
PS how you could explain that: 3. Time becomes non existent for objects approaching the speed of light and light itself.
Time does not become nonexistent for an object approaching 'c'. What happens is that the rate at which the object travels along the time axis decreases and approaches zero. It is also incorrect to say that time does not exist for an object traveling at 'c', for if you are in a car driving North, the fact that you are not driving East or West does not mean that East or West no longer exist.
you walk on the street.......tell me how you walk through space and time ?
are you not aware that you walk in space only ?
and with clock you measure speed of your going !
-
You seem to be insisting upon an answer that fits your preconceptions but, unfortunately, your preconceptions make it impossible to give you the answer you seek.
-
Lee,
Please do not waste any more of your time.
It seems that Amrit was only interested in demanding that we acknowledge his notions. We didn't. He's banned.
Geezer
-
Hmm... I wouldn't have thought it necessary to ban him - it's easy enough to just ignore people who don't listen, and if they're not banned they still have a chance to go away, think about it and then redeem themselves. Not my problem though.
-
Hmm... I wouldn't have thought it necessary to ban him - it's easy enough to just ignore people who don't listen, and if they're not banned they still have a chance to go away, think about it and then redeem themselves. Not my problem though.
Lee, you are quite right, it is a tough call.
In the absense of data, if things get personal, it tends to become less difficult.
-
Time is actually defined my motion.
If there is no motion, time does not exist. And by motion, I mean the motion of either the Universe or the motion of the quantum particles.
If you stop the motion of the universe or of the quantum particles, then time does not seem to exist in any of the above three frames or in any other frame.
It is then possible to go back in past by reversing the motion of the quantum particles, but in the process, you would deteriorate as you go back.
-
It is then possible to go back in past by reversing the motion of the quantum particles, ...
No. I think it will still advance into the future, but with opposite motion (I guess velocity, acceleration, whatever).
If you stop the motion of the universe or of the quantum particles,
How can you stop the motion? Even in lowest energetic state a quantum oscillator have nonzero energy.
What about a photon? It appear that it does not 'have' any perception of time and space.
-
You gonna love this one, Geezers new clock.. (http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/06/relativity_on_a_human_scale.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+scienceblogs/uncertainprinciples+%28Uncertain+Principles%29)
-
Ha ha! Thanks Yoron.
I may have to put the Atmos on Ebay. It may work better as a barometer than is does as a clock. [:D]
-
Don your idea may be more of a semantic one than a logical.
You assume that time actually can have different temporal 'directions'.
We don't know that, we have no experimental proofs of it, the only thing we have is our 'reversible math' that makes sense in a mathematical fashion. I agree with your concept of 'motion' though as the uncontroversial experimental proof of what we know. That time have one arrow, pointing the same way no matter what frame of reference you exist in. If time were to stop no thoughts would be there, without those where would that inquisitive mind be? And how would we come to a separation of matter and 'nothing' that we experience. ´Without time there would be nothing to measure and no experimental proofs either.
-
Don your idea may be more of a semantic one than a logical.
You assume that time actually can have different temporal 'directions'.
We don't know that, we have no experimental proofs of it, the only thing we have is our 'reversible math' that makes sense in a mathematical fashion. I agree with your concept of 'motion' though as the uncontroversial experimental proof of what we know. That time have one arrow, pointing the same way no matter what frame of reference you exist in. If time were to stop no thoughts would be there, without those where would that inquisitive mind be? And how would we come to a separation of matter and 'nothing' that we experience. ´Without time there would be nothing to measure and no experimental proofs either.
Hi Yoron,
I have a nasty suspicion that entropy ultimately prevents us from reversing time. A lot of the other things might be (conceptually) reversible, but entropy is very difficult to reverse.
-
Geezer as a technician I am intrigued by the experiment you describe, does your pulse generator, photo transistor and LED have sufficiently rapid rise times to work in the sub nano second region.
-
Geezer as a technician I am intrigued by the experiment you describe, does your pulse generator, photo transistor and LED have sufficiently rapid rise times to work in the sub nano second region.
Hi Syhprum:
I've never actually done this experiment, but I think it should work. I was extrapolating from observations of digital circuits many years ago where the delays produced by the PCB traces were quite easy to observe and quantify with garden variety scopes of the time. Admittedly, the propagation is on PCBs is only about a third of C.
The pulse width can be large. You just need a sufficient repetition rate to build up a decent image on the scope. Even if the LED and phototransistor are a bit on the slow side, it should be possible to clearly see the delay produced by the greater distance.
The biggest problem might be columnating the light from the LED (an infrared emitter might be better) so that the waveforms were very similar at the two distances. I suppose a way around that would be to use a powerful emitter and do the tests at 900 mm and 1000 mm. Of course, if we used a laser, we could also measure the delay over much greater distances.
-
Geezer
May I suggest if you ever setup the experiment you use a laser diode and a photo multiplier tube.
To measure the time delay accurately you need a fairly steep rise on the oscilloscope display
-
Geezer
May I suggest if you ever setup the experiment you use a laser diode and a photo multiplier tube.
To measure the time delay accurately you need a fairly steep rise on the oscilloscope display
Well, yes. The steeper the better, but as long as the slope was not too horribly slow, you could make a reasonable estimate - within maybe 10% or so?
My proposed experiment was a "super economy" version that anyone might set up in their basement. The idea was to demonstrate that light "takes time" to travel distance more than anything else. I would not recommend it as a method for precisely evaluating C [:D]