Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MikeS on 03/02/2012 11:26:36
-
Does Time have a Direction Without Gravity?
I don't think it does.
-
Yes it does. thermodynamics would still work in the absence of gravity and that also defines the arrow of time.
-
Yes it does. thermodynamics would still work in the absence of gravity and that also defines the arrow of time.
I believe you are saying that entropy defines the arrow of time and in this I would agree.
When two massive objects combine, time dilates for them. This is the same as a reduction of useful energy which is the same as an increase in entropy. (It takes more energy to do anything in a strong gravitational field then in a weak one). Gravity is an example of entropy (possibly the main example) and as such defines the arrow of time.
quote "thermodynamics would still work in the absence of gravity".
Presumably you mean entropy would still work in the absence of gravity.
Could you give examples please?
Thanks
-
thermodynamics involves more than just entropy which is itself a very complex and mostly misunderstood process. What entropy is not is a gradual randomisation of things because this only applies to the thermodynamics of non interacting particles. Most particles interact even if it only by gravity and this means that the end result is not an even random distribution.
-
Thanks but you last post ignored my last question
"Presumably you mean entropy would still work in the absence of gravity.
Could you give examples please?"
I personally don't believe that time has a direction without gravity.
You said "thermodynamics would still work in the absence of gravity".
I assumed this to mean "entropy would still work in the absence of gravity."
If my interpretation of what aspect of thermodynamics you are referring to is wrong then please explain what aspect you are referring to and please give examples as I previously requested.
Any examples you give I would like to follow through to see whether or not they are connected to gravity. Without examples I can't do it.
-
My original question was
“Does Time have a Direction Without Gravity?”
Quote Soul Surfer
“Yes it does. thermodynamics would still work in the absence of gravity and that also defines the arrow of time.”
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say?
1 You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).
This is time independent and gravity independent. This only works in the sense that nothing is happening. If something were happening then it would happen in time. We can’t discuss whether that something is affected by gravity because there is no something to discuss.
2 You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
This is the best example of the passage of time and times arrow itself being dependant upon gravity. I mentioned this in my last post.
“I believe you are saying that entropy defines the arrow of time and in this I would agree.
When two massive objects combine, time dilates for them. This is the same as a reduction of useful energy which is the same as an increase in entropy. (It takes more energy to do anything in a strong gravitational field then in a weak one). Gravity is an example of entropy (possibly the main example) and as such defines the arrow of time.” In other words both gravity and entropy carry the arrow of time.
There may be other examples of entropy that do not at first sight appear to be gravity dependent but I believe that if investigated in sufficient depth they would ultimately prove to be gravity dependent. Entropy is a process whereby something happens. Nothing can happen independent of time and it requires more than just times arrow. There has to be a passage of time. For example the infinite gravity at the event horizon of a black hole carries times arrow but there is no passage of time as perceived from a distant observer.
3 You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable). The Third Law explains this further. It says that all processes cease as temperature approaches absolute zero. This is the temperature at which molecules cease movement, cease producing kinetic energy. In other words, there is no energy.
If absolute zero were attainable then the arrow of time would still point forward but the clock would have stopped. Again, this is a condition found at the event horizon of a black hole. To get to this situation this is something that has happened in time and in this example is caused by gravity. When time ceases to flow, times arrow remains.
Zeroth Law The so-called Zeroth Law is a bit more fundamental than the other Three Laws. It came into being after the Three. It essentially says that if each of two systems is in equilibrium with a third system, the first two are in equilibrium with one another.
That’s not a process and does not require either time or gravity.
As far as I can see, there is no process in thermodynamics that can work without gravity.
-
hydrogen and oxygen atoms can combine to form water molecules in the complete absence of gravity. This releases energy and results in an increase in entropy and takes time. This is an electromagnetic process.
-
Mix a hot gas and a cold gas together in a box in the absence of gravity. They will mix and won't unmix. This is an increase in entropy without gravity.
-
I believe that SS meant molecules not atoms Hydrogen atoms combine to form molecules with a large release of energy
-
Geezer
quote
"As this is a new theory thinly disguised as a question, it's moving to "New Theories"."
To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely nothing been mentioned so far that constitutes a "New Theory".
-
Before responding to the previous replies could I please rephrase, in this post, the original question from
Does Time have a Direction Without Gravity?
to
Can time exist without gravity?
-
Try clarifying again. If you are asking whether it is necessary to have existence of matter and energy (and thus gravity) for time to be considered then possibly yes. If you are asking whether we need to consider gravity in any discussion of time then definitely no.
-
Try clarifying again. If you are asking whether it is necessary to have existence of matter and energy (and thus gravity) for time to be considered then possibly yes. If you are asking whether we need to consider gravity in any discussion of time then definitely no.
"If... it is necessary to have existence of matter and energy (and thus gravity) for time to be considered then possibly yes."
If that is true then the following has to be false. "If you are asking whether we need to consider gravity in any discussion" (on the nature) "of time then definitely no."
We know that a graduated gravitational potential due to mass dilates local time. How then can you say "If you are asking whether we need to consider gravity in any discussion" (on the nature) "of time then definitely no."
The local gravitational potential quite obviously does affect the local time dilation factor. Therefore gravity needs to be considered in any discussion on the nature of time.
-
Sorry Mike but you are so obsessed with gravity and time dilation you aren't seeing the wood for the trees. Nothing dilates local time - you need to get that straight; you can never find your own clock running slow! In your own frame all time is undilated. When you look at a source in a frame at a different relative velocity or at a different gravitational potential then you get time dilation.
To analyse any reaction you need to choose a frame (ie you cannot mix terms from different FoR) and once you have chosen that frame you know that there can be no time dilation differences within that frame. And that all calculations will still hold true if you make that frame travel at high relative speed (ie by moving yourself and then choosing yourself as the rest frame) and will still hold true if that frame is at a different gravitational potential compared to the frame of the experimenter. So yes you can ignore time dilation by either doing the experiment within the frame of the interaction or by compensating for frame differences. The time dilation does not affect the reaction - it affects the observation of it.
-
Try clarifying again. If you are asking whether it is necessary to have existence of matter and energy (and thus gravity) for time to be considered then possibly yes. If you are asking whether we need to consider gravity in any discussion of time then definitely no.
"If... it is necessary to have existence of matter and energy (and thus gravity) for time to be considered then possibly yes."
If that is true then the following has to be false. "If you are asking whether we need to consider gravity in any discussion" (on the nature) "of time then definitely no."
We know that a graduated gravitational potential due to mass dilates local time as viewed from the reference frame of a distant observer. How then can you say "If you are asking whether we need to consider gravity in any discussion" (on the nature) "of time then definitely no."
The local gravitational potential quite obviously does affect the local time dilation factor as viewed from the reference frame of a distant observer. Therefore gravity needs to be considered in any discussion on the nature of time.
There was nothing wrong in what I said. When referring to local time I should have added "as viewed from the reference frame of a distant observer." Local time has dilated, that's the whole point. A local clock does not register that dilation as it is in that time frame. However, from the time frame of a distant observer then in that 'local' frame, time has dilated.
So yes you can ignore time dilation by either doing the experiment within the frame of the interaction or by compensating for frame differences. The time dilation does not affect the reaction - it affects the observation of it.
I agree but the local passage of time (time dilation factor) according to a distant observer still depends upon the local gravitational potential or acceleration. Therefore you cannot divorce gravity from time when considering the nature of time. You can ignore the effects of gravity in local time to all practical considerations under normal circumstances but you cannot when considering the nature of time as gravity is an integral part. Gravity always plays its part in the passage of time but mostly goes unnoticed. It is always there and it is always affecting the local time dilation factor according to a distant observer.
-
So yes you can ignore time dilation by either doing the experiment within the frame of the interaction or by compensating for frame differences. The time dilation does not affect the reaction - it affects the observation of it.
Thinking about it, I believe you are wrong. It affects the amount of energy required to do the reaction and results in higher entropy.
The time dilation factor does affect the reaction in as much as entropy increases at a higher rate in a greater time dilation than in a lesser one. You need more energy to do anything (including any chemical reaction, experiment etc.) in a greater time dilated (higher gravitational) potential than in a lower time dilated (lower gravitational) potential. This is the answer I was looking for but had as then not found in answer to Soul Surfer and JP earlier in this thread.
-
So yes you can ignore time dilation by either doing the experiment within the frame of the interaction or by compensating for frame differences. The time dilation does not affect the reaction - it affects the observation of it.
Thinking about it, I believe you are wrong. It affects the amount of energy required to do the reaction and results in higher entropy.
The time dilation factor does affect the reaction in as much as entropy increases at a higher rate in a greater time dilation than in a lesser one. You need more energy to do anything (including any chemical reaction, experiment etc.) in a greater time dilated (higher gravitational) potential than in a lower time dilated (lower gravitational) potential. This is the answer I was looking for but had as then not found in answer to Soul Surfer and JP earlier in this thread.
Mike this is getting bizarre.
.... in a greater time dilated (higher gravitational) potential than in a lower time dilated (lower gravitational) potential.
Even ignoring the claim about energy needed this sentence is wrong. gravitational potential goes up as you leave the gravity well of a massive body - clocks at a high gravitational potential run faster than those at a low gravitational potential. You are making claims of a subject you really do not understand.
Please at least read the wikipage on this subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
-
Time is a really strange subject. Myself I think of it as two 'properties'. 'Time' itself and then a, or more, 'arrows' depending on how you see it. But as no interactions can exist without a arrow, as far as I see? Time as a concept must exist, with the rest becoming expressions of 'changes' possibly? And if we discuss 'change', then it should be directly related to the SpaceTime geometry you define it from, at least in relativity where 'frames of reference' will define whatever positions in time and 'space' you measure, relative what 'frame' you define it from.
-
It's definitely a head-scratcher YorOn. Using your two properties: Interactions without time seem to be impossible, but interactions without an arrow it is difficult to agree. Barring large numbers of particles where probability/entropy comes into play, I don't believe there are any reactions/interactions that are not time reversible; ie which make just as much sense going in one direction as the other. We only get the arrow from the complexity/entropy side of things and that only applies in large macro systems
-
There are interactions that's not time-reversible (CPT). You state a interesting question when you say "Barring large numbers of particles where probability/entropy comes into play, I don't believe there are any reactions/interactions that are not time reversible." Probability is what QM use to define macroscopic behavior, but from where do they draw/define those probability's? From experience, isn't that so? Why does that invalidate time reversibility?
Time reversibility in its simplest form is like a movie you can play both ways, both making sense, as a Feynman diagram. But that we see that something can be expressed 't' or '-t', is that equivalent to 'times arrow' going backwards?
Not if you trust our experience.
-
Which small scale interactions are non time-reversible? There are parity violations (electron spin out of decay is always left handed). The only area where we would immediately know that a reaction has been reversed is with large numbers of particles - this is what I meant by probability/entropy related; QM is a different matter entirely and I think is all time reversible.
In all experiments barring entropy related we don't know which is t- or t+ - our experience is another matter entirely, and very difficult to link to a physical law outside thermodynamics and entropy.
-
We know what times arrow is?
I'm not sure how you think there, everything you do is inside the arrow. If you think of it as a equation, you still will see it unfold inside that arrow in practicality. As for what QM thingies that's not time reversible, there are some easy (weak nuclear force) to find if you use Google, and I've seen some pdf:s discussing it too in more depth. It's been some time since I read about it but I'll see if I can find one on my laptop. Conceptually it seems to be possible that most interactions we see can be played backwards, but as far as I know the ones we measure all act inside the arrow we have.
About Einstein and time reversibility. (http://www.losfelizpublishing.com/Time%20Travel.htm)
-
One way to think of it might be to consider all processes unfolding as results of 'emergences'. That we from those unfolding can see linear processes that you might play both ways will then become a result from the 'constants' that we find, defining them.
Well, possibly, I can't be sure of that at all :) but to me it seems as we have a 'hidden game' in where 'times arrow' defines the 'linearity' we experience.
-
Yoron - a few experiments have shown CP violations - but I did not know of any that have show CPT violations. Weak Nuclear implies a violation of T - but it is more a violation of CP and theoretically the T should follows.
this has a nice explanation
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapters/05/2.html
-
I believe, in the proverbial "closed system", radioactive decay must proceed in the direction of increasing entropy. You start with uranium and end up with lead, and that is independent of gravity. You can't go from lead to uranium without a low-entropy input from outside the system.
In my own model, the direction of time is determined by the expansion of space, with alternate scale-wise universes running in alternate directions.
-
Imaatfaal, you wrote "I don't believe there are any reactions/interactions that are not time reversible; ie which make just as much sense going in one direction as the other. " and I referred you too CPT (Charge, Parity, and Time Reversals). I gave you one example of it (weak nuclear force) but I expect there to be more to be found. It would be nice if the symmetry(ies) couldn't be questioned, but it/they can. That may mean that there are some deeper definition of it which must be symmetric, or it may be that what we see is a result of us living in a universe where most is arranged as a symmetry by 'chance/probability' although not coming out so at all times. I don't know, although I would really like to know what 'time' and its arrow really, and I do mean, R e a l l y, is/are myself?
Spontaneous CPT asymmetry of the Universe (Free) (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111350)
CPT violation and particle-antiparticle asymmetry in cosmology. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/03658772p648l36q/)
Just interesting :) (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/Douglas_Kutach/cpt.html)
-
I better point out, before we get too deep into this, that if any interaction is found to be asymmetric it has to be found so inside the arrow we have, as I see it. And so all CPT interactions not 'reversible' also falls under the arrow of time. But this is my own view. But logically you can't discuss an interaction without involving the arrow, except as a 'emergence' of course.
In that case we are discussing what we see coming up from the fountains 'origin', as I see it, also what I mean by 'deeper definition' and in that case I would call it 'time' myself, instead of a arrow.
-
Imaatfaal, you wrote "I don't believe there are any reactions/interactions that are not time reversible; ie which make just as much sense going in one direction as the other. " and I referred you too CPT (Charge, Parity, and Time Reversals). I gave you one example of it (weak nuclear force) but I expect there to be more to be found. It would be nice if the symmetry(ies) couldn't be questioned, but it/they can. That may mean that there are some deeper definition of it which must be symmetric, or it may be that what we see is a result of us living in a universe where most is arranged as a symmetry by 'chance/probability' although not coming out so at all times. I don't know, although I would really like to know what 'time' and its arrow really, and I do mean, R e a l l y, is/are myself?
Spontaneous CPT asymmetry of the Universe (Free) (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111350)
CPT violation and particle-antiparticle asymmetry in cosmology. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/03658772p648l36q/)
Just interesting :) (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/Douglas_Kutach/cpt.html)
Yoron - to the best of reading (and thats not too hot) these are theoretical and deal with the possible ramification of CP and T breaking. They also rely on the sakharov conditions which involve breaking T thermodynamically in large systerms
Read here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/cpt.html#c3
-
Turbulence around an object moving thru a fluid is a good illustration of the irreversibility of time.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.earthtechling.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F04%2FTurbine-Turbulence-e1304041431660.jpg&hash=01e28a5854df2916d0d09c283c553c2a)
Reversing time puts the turbulence on upwind side of the windmills.
-
Yes, nice one Phractality. And yes Imatfaal, it's different views. If we have a 'box' then you might expect everything to reversible. If we don't have that universal box, the way we look at it, define it, now then there will be violations found. It's also a matter of our definitions as it seems to me, it's very possible we might find better descriptions for the 'box' than those we have now.
-
So yes you can ignore time dilation by either doing the experiment within the frame of the interaction or by compensating for frame differences. The time dilation does not affect the reaction - it affects the observation of it.
Thinking about it, I believe you are wrong. It affects the amount of energy required to do the reaction and results in higher entropy.
The time dilation factor does affect the reaction in as much as entropy increases at a higher rate in a greater time dilation than in a lesser one. You need more energy to do anything (including any chemical reaction, experiment etc.) in a greater time dilated (higher gravitational) potential than in a lower time dilated (lower gravitational) potential. This is the answer I was looking for but had as then not found in answer to Soul Surfer and JP earlier in this thread.
Mike this is getting bizarre.
.... in a greater time dilated (higher gravitational) potential than in a lower time dilated (lower gravitational) potential.
Even ignoring the claim about energy needed this sentence is wrong. gravitational potential goes up as you leave the gravity well of a massive body - clocks at a high gravitational potential run faster than those at a low gravitational potential. You are making claims of a subject you really do not understand.
Please at least read the wikipage on this subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
If you drop a weight onto ice, the energy released will cause a certain amont of ice to turn into water. If you repeat the same experiment in a higher gravity environment a greater amount of ice will turn into water. The explanation being it took more energy to raise the weight in the higher gravitational environment. Even ignoring the amount of ice turned to water, it will still require more energy to raise the weight in a higher gravity environment. Therefore gravity cannot be ignored in the experiment and as the time dilation factor is tied to gravity, neither can time dilation be ignored.
When I refer to gravitational potential I am refering to the gravitational strength in that environment. The gravitational strength increases closer to the mass. This is the oposite of what you are refering to which is gravitational potential energy. I do understand the subject and my claim is correct.
I would have replied earlier but my PC demonstrated times arrow by dying and I have just got it back.
-
I believe, in the proverbial "closed system", radioactive decay must proceed in the direction of increasing entropy. You start with uranium and end up with lead, and that is independent of gravity. You can't go from lead to uranium without a low-entropy input from outside the system.
In my own model, the direction of time is determined by the expansion of space, with alternate scale-wise universes running in alternate directions.
Nothing is independent of gravity and certainly nothing that has mass.
-
I believe, in the proverbial "closed system", radioactive decay must proceed in the direction of increasing entropy. You start with uranium and end up with lead, and that is independent of gravity. You can't go from lead to uranium without a low-entropy input from outside the system.
In my own model, the direction of time is determined by the expansion of space, with alternate scale-wise universes running in alternate directions.
Nothing is independent of gravity and certainly nothing that has mass.
The electroweak force is like 44 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. I doubt if gravity can have much of an influence inside a nucleus.
-
Phrac
Radioactive decay proceeds at a given rate. Therefore time plays a roll in the process and the time dilation factor is affected by the gravitational field.
Presumably radioactive decay could be used as a clock. The time dilation factor of that clock will vary depending upon its hight within the gravitational gradient. So it would seem that gravity by affecting time dilation does play a part even at the nuclear level.
-
Phrac
Radioactive decay proceeds at a given rate. Therefore time plays a roll in the process and the time dilation factor is affected by the gravitational field.
Presumably radioactive decay could be used as a clock. The time dilation factor of that clock will vary depending upon its hight within the gravitational gradient. So it would seem that gravity by affecting time dilation does play a part even at the nuclear level.
Where gravity does dilate time, yes; I believe it affects the rate of radioactive decay, but not the direction. I thought we were talking about absence of gravity, except, of course the gravity among nucleons of a single atom. It takes a lot of atoms to warp space-time significantly.
Anyway, aren't we talking about the direction of time? Gravity dilates time; it doesn't affect the direction of time, at least not in Einstein's general relativity. I believe, when we get around to unifying GR with quantum mechanics, we're going to have to treat the nuclear forces in the same way that we treat gravity. At nuclear distances, the strong and weak forces (and perhaps the Higgs force) will warp space-time, but to a far greater extent than gravity does. A quark may resemble a tiny black hole, due to the way those forces warp space-time inside the subatomic particles. Outside the nucleus, those forces cancel each other out, so they don't warp space-time. I expect them to dilate time, also, but not alter its direction.
In the absence of gravity other than that between nucleons of a single atom, without a major modification of GR, radioactive decay proceeds in the same direction as it does near a black hole. Inside a black hole, all bets are off.
The one thing in my model that reverses the direction of time is scale, with many orders of magnitude defining the scales of successive universes. At present, there are roughly 59 orders of magnitude difference between our universe and the next larger-scale universe, and that number is increasing. Between our universe and the next smaller-scale universe, the scale factor is probably unknowable and decreasing from our point of view, while increasing from a sub-universe point of view.
-
Phrac
Radioactive decay proceeds at a given rate. Therefore time plays a roll in the process and the time dilation factor is affected by the gravitational field.
Presumably radioactive decay could be used as a clock. The time dilation factor of that clock will vary depending upon its hight within the gravitational gradient. So it would seem that gravity by affecting time dilation does play a part even at the nuclear level.
Where gravity does dilate time, yes; I believe it affects the rate of radioactive decay, but not the direction. I thought we were talking about absence of gravity, except, of course the gravity among nucleons of a single atom. It takes a lot of atoms to warp space-time significantly.
Anyway, aren't we talking about the direction of time? Gravity dilates time; it doesn't affect the direction of time, at least not in Einstein's general relativity. I believe, when we get around to unifying GR with quantum mechanics, we're going to have to treat the nuclear forces in the same way that we treat gravity. At nuclear distances, the strong and weak forces (and perhaps the Higgs force) will warp space-time, but to a far greater extent than gravity does. A quark may resemble a tiny black hole, due to the way those forces warp space-time inside the subatomic particles. Outside the nucleus, those forces cancel each other out, so they don't warp space-time. I expect them to dilate time, also, but not alter its direction.
In the absence of gravity other than that between nucleons of a single atom, without a major modification of GR, radioactive decay proceeds in the same direction as it does near a black hole. Inside a black hole, all bets are off.
The one thing in my model that reverses the direction of time is scale, with many orders of magnitude defining the scales of successive universes. At present, there are roughly 59 orders of magnitude difference between our universe and the next larger-scale universe, and that number is increasing. Between our universe and the next smaller-scale universe, the scale factor is probably unknowable and decreasing from our point of view, while increasing from a sub-universe point of view.
I don't believe that Einstein precluded the possibility of time reversal.
At the event horizon of a black hole time virtually stands still according to a distant observer but the arrow remains in the same direction. It is still open to experimental proof whether or not antimatter and matter are gravitationally attractive or repulsive. If repulsive then in an antimatter universe the arrow of time would point in the opposite direction. If that is true then matter causes the arrow of time to point in one direction and antimatter causes it to point in the other. Until such time as this experiment can be done it must remain open to question whether or not this is the case.
However, it is certainly true that gravity defines the direction of the arrow of time. If you drop a tea cup it shatters. This is an example of entropy, the main arrow of time.
-
An increase in gravitational strength dilates time. The EH of a black hole dilates time to the point where it (effectively) stops. Although the passage of time has stopped the arrow of time remains but the clock never ticks.
Do we all agree or disagree?
-
An increase in gravitational strength dilates time. The EH of a black hole dilates time to the point where it (effectively) stops. Although the passage of time has stopped the arrow of time remains but the clock never ticks.
imatfaal is probably going to point out that this is true only for a distant observer. For an observer in the EH (lets call him Fred), time passes as normal as perceived by him and recorded by his clock.
Fred does not notice the slowing of time as perceived by a distant observer. As time stops so Fred's thought processes stop. Fred's watch stops.
When Fred's watch stops, time really has stopped both for Fred and the distant observer.
-
An increase in gravitational strength dilates time. The EH of a black hole dilates time to the point where it (effectively) stops. Although the passage of time has stopped the arrow of time remains but the clock never ticks.
imatfaal is probably going to point out that this is true only for a distant observer. For an observer in the EH (lets call him Fred), time passes as normal as perceived by him and recorded by his clock.
Fred does not notice the slowing of time as perceived by a distant observer. As time stops so Fred's thought processes stop. Fred's watch stops.
When Fred's watch stops, time really has stopped both for Fred and the distant observer.
Because you post hundreds of messages on gravitational potential time dilation without understanding it. Fred will feel the pain as tidal forces rip him to pieces and we can only pray he is unconscious first; but he will not repeat NOT be insensible due to time slowing for him. He will know that it is slowing because the signals from his mate in the accelerated frame of reference will be more and more blueshifted - but he will not be able to sense it in his local frame. His mate will look at his signals and think that it is taking a huge time for his to cross the EH.
And it is gravitational potential - not gravitational strength; there is a difference.
You keep on about the arrow of time remaining - how do we test for that?
-
An increase in gravitational strength dilates time. The EH of a black hole dilates time to the point where it (effectively) stops. Although the passage of time has stopped the arrow of time remains but the clock never ticks.
imatfaal is probably going to point out that this is true only for a distant observer. For an observer in the EH (lets call him Fred), time passes as normal as perceived by him and recorded by his clock.
Fred does not notice the slowing of time as perceived by a distant observer. As time stops so Fred's thought processes stop. Fred's watch stops.
When Fred's watch stops, time really has stopped both for Fred and the distant observer.
Because you post hundreds of messages on gravitational potential time dilation without understanding it. Fred will feel the pain as tidal forces rip him to pieces and we can only pray he is unconscious first; but he will not repeat NOT be insensible due to time slowing for him. He will know that it is slowing because the signals from his mate in the accelerated frame of reference will be more and more blueshifted - but he will not be able to sense it in his local frame. His mate will look at his signals and think that it is taking a huge time for his to cross the EH.
And it is gravitational potential - not gravitational strength; there is a difference.
You keep on about the arrow of time remaining - how do we test for that?
I think that I do understand it and you have yet to convince me otherwise. Give me proof of what I have got wrong that's all I ask.
I thought that was obvious and in this thought experiment it was irrelevant to state it.
That's exactly what I said "For an observer in the EH (lets call him Fred), time passes as normal as perceived by him and recorded by his clock."
We have had this discussion in a different thread over the confusion of the terms 'gravitational potential' and 'gravitational potential energy'. Some people and web sites use both terms to mean 'gravitational potential energy'. To get rid of the confusion I have mentioned this before in the hope that we can speak a common language on the subject but you have not answered my post.
I assume by 'gravitational potential' you are referring to the gravitational constant like on the surface of the Earth for instance? Not GPE. The 'gravitational potential' at any particular place is the same thing as it's 'gravitational strength' as far as I can see. If, on the other hand you are using the term 'gravitational potential' to mean 'gravitational potential energy' then this is not the same as 'gravitational strength'. We need to clarify this.
You probably can't test for it as a test involves the passage of time but you can be aware of it as I have mentioned many times before in previous threads. Whilst we can't as yet test for it we can do a thought experiment as mentioned below.
A plumb bob (weight on a piece of string) points down being the direction it would travel through space-time if released. Its a static indication of the arrow of time. To be a demonstration it only needs to be dropped. When I say static indication it's a relative term. The plumb bob when stationary in space is still moving through time.
How to prove the arrow of time still exists if there is no 'passage' of time' (time is infinitely dilated).
Imagine this plumb bob to be on a very long piece of string and the plumb bob itself to be held 'stationary' in the event horizon of a black hole. The plumb bob points toward the singularity. Being in the Event Horizon the 'passage' of time is stationary but the arrow of time still exists. This could be interpreted as whilst the passage of time is zero, 'space' is flowing into the black hole at the speed of light. However, this still shows that the 'arrow' of time still exists even without the 'passage' of time.