The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?  (Read 61295 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #150 on: 02/02/2011 03:08:46 »
well, either you think of 'one SpaceTime' with all those 'frames of reference' constantly melting into each other, more or less magically and 'invincibly'. Or you decide that we all have different 'room time geometries' and that even though we share and perceive only one, the one that each one of us perceive must be slightly different and unique. If you choose the later it's no longer any miracle that others 'SpaceTimes' won't get influenced by yours.
==

But it won't explain why we all perceive it as the same 'SpaceTime'. And it don't explain how we cooperate and live together. And neither does it address how we interact, gaining energy. After all, then there should be a infinity of 'SpaceTimes' if that was right, right?
=

Why we perceive only one is fairly simple though. You can't perceive anything more than that, can you? :)
==

I wrote "But what about those unchanging durations and measurements I make inside my ship then? There distance never changed, and the times 'durations' is still the same to me as they were on Earth?"

That one becomes slightly weird. If I assume that my whole 'room time geometry' contracted and also assume that 'time' is a indivisible part of it, why didn't my time contract too? If it did I might assume that the time dilation would work the other way, and that the one traveling would become the older twin. So my 'room' contracts, but my 'time' magnifies?

Think of it as equally large 'measures'. With the rooms 'markers' contracting, and the other indivisible part of a SpaceTime, the 'times' markers growing. That is, each 'duration' of 'times arrow' must have 'expanded' for me in a way, 'slowing down' my aging as compared to my twin on Earth. A little like squeezing a balloon in the middle watching it adapt by bulging out at the ends. It's a very unscientific description, and all of this is a thought experiment, please remember this. But it catches one important part of SpaceTime, its indivisibility.

We think we have a 'SpaceTime' where the conservation laws rules. Where nothing is 'lost' and where 'energy' is what gets consumed in the transformations of work, to finally 'work done'.

So what is 'Energy'?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 04:03:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #151 on: 02/02/2011 03:56:05 »
I think there are limitless spacetimes as you suggest, but as all motion is controlled by the time within a frame, everything behaves normally within that frame.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #152 on: 02/02/2011 04:04:55 »
Yep, and none of us will ever perceive it differently. At least as I understand it :)
Motion is one weird idea :)

I mean, it seems so simple, we all know what it is, but it changes a whole 'SpaceTime'. And you don't even need to 'move'. Invariant mass does it as well :)
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 04:08:02 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #153 on: 02/02/2011 04:33:19 »
Think of gravity waves. We have found indications/evidence of them existing when looking at binary stars. When such a wave rolls through you, you both contract and expand, but you won't ever notice it. Neither will you 'break'. Now think of 'time', not its 'arrow' but primeval time itself. Imagine it as a ocean joined 390 degrees against 'reality', which means our other three dimensions :) is seamlessly joined to it, none existing on its own. I'm not saying that you can't have one or two dimensional SpaceTimes, but we don't have them, as far as I know.

Now consider the arrow, let us assume that as the 'room contracts' times arrow finds it 'denser'. What happens when traffic meets a 'obstacle' like the road shrinking to only one lane? it slows down doesn't it? And what happens when there becomes four lanes again, it speeds up, right?

Now, I do not think of time as an ocean, well mostly I don't at least. And I do not think of SpaceTime as something getting 'denser' as it contracts :) But I still think that this might be an analogue to what should happen for 'times arrow' to slow down, without me being able to notice and measure it.

And now I better stop, before my imagination throws me over the edge :)
==

Just one question.
Assuming this analogue was correct. What would it do to my suggestion that all 'durations' are the same, as measured from ones own frame of reference? Would it invalidate it, or not?

 :)


« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 04:46:57 by yor_on »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #154 on: 02/02/2011 06:30:53 »
Think of gravity waves.

Must I? I can't even think about what I should be doing tomorrow ;D

Seriously, yes. All durations are the same relative to ones own frame of reference. While I'm sure you could drive a Mack (or Volvo) truck through my atmospheric pressure analogy, it's not so unlike time. Wherever you are, you, and everything else, are subject to that pressure (or time). And time (or spacetime if you prefer) rules all.

Nothing can escape it (well, maybe sub atomic particles can) so all processes (physical, chemical, etc) are dictated by time within a locality (or frame).

If you take it to an extreme, if time were to stop in a given locality (which I suspect is impossible), and we were in that locality, how would we know that it had even stopped, or for how long? As time clearly controls motion, if time stops, so does motion.

Or,

Motion does not determine time. Time determines motion.

« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 07:35:23 by Geezer »
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #155 on: 02/02/2011 12:54:18 »
I was not referring to relativity. I was referring to his ideas on time being an illusion.

And I'm not derailing the thread. I'm just asking you to present some evidence to support your claim that time is an illusion. That was an idea that Einstein came up with very late in his career, long after his work on relativity.

yeah, that is relativity - timelessness is part of relativity, a direct solution to General Relativity, hence it is not merely an idea which was kicked around. Understand that and you might get over yourself for a second.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #156 on: 02/02/2011 13:28:01 »
Let's consider the opposite then. Time as being non-existent. That one is very tricky. Because as soon as you have a linear causality chain you will find we have a name for it, namely 'times arrow'. You might want to call it thermodynamics, but I don't.

In fact it still will be a linear causality chain macroscopically. You see, I'm free to in-cooperate any ideas that exist into that 'arrow'. So you might want to look at it as some weird causality-chain defined by 'decay' where there is nothing 'in reality' that have an general order, but where it all change differently at some quantum level. That's cool with me, and you know what :) That's our arrow of time.

The only thing an 'arrow' introduces is the idea of a 'future', a 'past' and the 'present'. So to 'kill' that idea you will have take away those attribute, invalidating you capacity of cogitation as you 'disappear in a puff of smoke', or as we all 'know it all' instantly, as we no longer is bound by any linear process ordering our thoughts, events, etc..

As I see it.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 13:30:23 by yor_on »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #157 on: 02/02/2011 14:21:00 »
QC - would be interested in details of the general solutions to GR that require time not to pass; there are some that end up in large closed loops - which is bad, and slightly naive simplifications which require stationarity.   
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #158 on: 02/02/2011 15:20:06 »
Assume that we all have different 'room time geometries' but still share only one 'SpaceTime':)

Can one make sense of that?
How about times arrow? Could that be what differ one indivisible 'SpaceTime' into those 'room time geometries'? Nah, or maybe? I don't know if that's possible, after all, we see a different 'SpaceTime' when speeding, distances time and all. Okay, turn it around. Is there anything unchanging in all those 'room time geometries'? Something 'common' to them all? Well, the constants are still the same, ain't they?

So we have those to lean on.

Let's look at a time dilation from the perspective of all 'durations' being of one same 'size'. how would I explain that I 'slowed down' relative the universe if so? I didn't, it was the universe 'speeding up' I say, but that includes all other in it too.

Yeah, why not? I have 'kept my durations' relative the the universe. But isn't their 'time' also of this 'even unchanging duration'? How did they 'speed up' then?

So? I don't think it's a good one.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 15:21:41 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #159 on: 02/02/2011 15:33:39 »
So we have two choices as I see it. Assuming, and there is nothing I know disproving this, that all durations actually are of one same 'size/duration'. How do I define a time dilation?

Either I have to use the idea of 'everything' in my 'time dilation' acting in a magnifying/contracting manner on me, that means presenting me with something acting solely on me, like if I was in a bubble of some sort, but that won't explain that contraction of space. If I want to explain that I will have to define a Lorentz contraction as being an illusion, and keeping the time dilation only.

Or I will use the idea of all 'room time geometries' being unique. then I change 'my SpaceTime' by speeding. But that leaves us with explaining why we can interact, and exist, together seamlessly, and why your 'durations/aging' answered that 'speed' of mine, if we now exist in different 'SpaceTimes'?

A third is defining it as 'frames of reference' but as that is the same as my 'room time geometries' the only difference being that all 'frames' are treated equally, and our 'reality' only can exist on a conceptual plane?

That one does not satisfy me.
==

In fact, my 'room time geometries' are no different from 'frames of reference'. Both need to be defined in their interacting with 'everything else', and both need to be explained from the concept of us only observing one SpaceTime.
==

So what is it, 'interacting' in between everything else?
Radiation?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 15:45:37 by yor_on »
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #160 on: 02/02/2011 18:19:44 »
People thought   mirage is illusion of water, but  mirage is sky under a corner of refraction  :D
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #161 on: 02/02/2011 18:24:38 »
Yeah, it's a truly weird subject. But time dilation is a direct result of 'frames of reference', or if you like, the idea of 'frames of reference' is the answer to 'time dilation'.

And as it exists?
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #162 on: 02/02/2011 18:53:23 »
Yeah, it's a truly weird subject. But time dilation is a direct result of 'frames of reference', or if you like, the idea of 'frames of reference' is the answer to 'time dilation'.

And as it exists?
I have no right to answer your question,because I do not recognise imaginary experiments of Einstein. :-X
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #163 on: 02/02/2011 18:58:37 »
I was not referring to relativity. I was referring to his ideas on time being an illusion.

And I'm not derailing the thread. I'm just asking you to present some evidence to support your claim that time is an illusion. That was an idea that Einstein came up with very late in his career, long after his work on relativity.

yeah, that is relativity - timelessness is part of relativity, a direct solution to General Relativity, hence it is not merely an idea which was kicked around. Understand that and you might get over yourself for a second.

I never seen Einstein saying that the 'arrow' doesn't exist?
Can you show me where he said that?

That he said that there is no 'now' doesn't state that you don't have a 'arrow of time'. He just defined in from a conceptual point of view in where your 'now' and mine 'now' will differ. But the arrow of time is what makes you age, and think.
===

And another thing, saying that time doesn't exist in fact invalidates Einsteins 'SpaceTime'. Notice the combination :) Space&Time. Einstein saw it as one 'whole thing', indivisible as I've understood it?

Maybe there are some quote from him where he redefine relativity too, that I missed?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 19:27:11 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #164 on: 02/02/2011 19:43:35 »
"In 1949, Gödel wrote an essay in which he used Einstein’s relativity theory to point out that we can send a message to the past. Gödel went a step further. Using Einstein’s general theory of relativity, he arrived at a universe whereupon we can physically travel to the past. He stated that “by making a round trip on a rocket ship in a sufficiently wide curve, it is possible in these worlds to travel into any region of the past, present, and future, and back again, exactly as it is possible in other worlds to travel to distant parts of space.”

  In the same book, some pages later in an article entitled “Reply to Criticisms,” Einstein commends politely his colleague’s paper with these words: “Kurt Gödel’s essay constitutes, in my opinion, an important contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially to the analysis of the concept of time.” This often-quoted statement has been used as a reaffirmation by Einstein that, according to physics, time travel is possible. But did Einstein really confirm Gödel’s findings? Not at all. Just the opposite. He immediately wrote: “The problem here involved disturbed me already at the time of the building up of the general theory of relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying it.”

    How does Einstein clarify the issue? He doesn’t do it within general theory of relativity. He goes outside relativity to thermodynamics and invokes the Second Law, the law of irreversibility of natural processes and the increase of entropy—the inseparable sister of energy. With the aid of a diagram, Einstein shows Gödel that we cannot “telegraph” back to our own past because the flow of time has an arrow and “there exists no free choice for the direction of the arrow.” He makes it clear that he wants to secure “the one-sided (asymmetrical) character of time.” These are strong and unambiguous words. Einstein explains the reason: “What is essential in this is the fact that the sending of a signal is, in the sense of thermodynamics, an irreversible process, a process which is connected with the growth of entropy (whereas, according to our present knowledge, all elementary processes are reversible).” "
===

And from a solely local definition of a 'frame of reference'. Defining and measuring from its 'inside', whatever that may be, we will find 'entropy' work, or as I see it 'times arrow' keeping a constant duration, the arrow unmeasurable as differing, no matter what you do, speeding away or not.

And that's what I call unique 'room time geometries'.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 19:47:04 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #165 on: 02/02/2011 20:04:00 »
The problem of 'time' only comes to be when we try to define it as 'unchanging' for a whole universe. We all know from our own reality that we have a 'arrow' splitting reality in a past as well as a 'future' with something we call a 'present' or 'now' defining where we 'are' in a temporal fashion. What you want to call that 'arrow' I don't really care, as long as you agree on it being undifferentiated, as measured from, and in, your own 'frame of reference'.

And then we come to Newtons 'universally unchanging time'. Well, forget it. That one is a illusion, a conceptual expectation, coming from our experiences of being able to correlate our 'arrows' with each other, inside a more or less common 'frame of reference' aka Earth.

That's not the truth. Einstein gave us the way it really worked. But as measured from the 'inside' of one single 'frame' Newtons definition will hold as far as I can see.

So?
==

Maybe it would be worth it defining what one think might be a 'illusion'?

A. If you make a measurement inside your own 'frame of reference' stating some fact, testable for others. Is that a illusion?

B. If you can't find a way/experiment to prove a proposition to be false, does that make that proposal a illusion?

C. If you believe yourself to define a truth conceptually, without being able to test it inside your 'frame of reference', is that an illusion?
==

A. My idea of 'common durations' of 'times arrow' inside your 'frame of reference' is testable, if we use a wristwatch against heartbeats, or any clock as compare to any other time device, keeping durations.

As for B.? The only way to define it as 'false' is from a 'conceptual standpoint' as I know it? Making a general statement that 'time', or a 'now',doesn't exist on that 'conceptual plane'.

As for C.?
Well, that's for those of you that see it as there existing no 'arrow' to decide.
Is C. a illusion?

It's a tangle that one.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 20:49:08 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1825
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #166 on: 02/02/2011 20:41:55 »
Quote from: yor-on
as measured from the 'inside' of one single 'frame' Newtons definition will hold as far as I can see.

Surely, if that were not the case, the "frame" would not be an inertial frame.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #167 on: 02/02/2011 20:53:41 »
I'm losing you there Bill?
A inertial frame is defined as a uniformly moving one?

Do you mean that in a accelerating frame my heartbeats will differ when compared to my wristwatch? That is, that times arrow, when measured, will express itself differently. If you mean that, do you have a experiment, or a reference to how?
==

If you assume a constantly (uniformly) accelerating frame, then we're talking gravity according to the principle of equivalence. That should then be Earth. And there my statement will hold.

If you assume an non-constant acceleration? I don't see how 'times arrow' can differ if measured inside that frame of reference? To see the difference I understand it as you will have to compare 'frames of reference'. If we take two space ships coasting either can become your 'inertial frame of reference' for the other. If one of them accelerates, constantly or not, you will observe a temporal difference when compared to your 'frame of reference', just as they will assign to you too, as they pass you. But that only is possible in comparisons between 'frames'. From the inside of its 'frame of reference' the accelerating ship will measure the same timely durations as they had when coasting, well, as far as I know?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 21:22:44 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #168 on: 02/02/2011 22:24:21 »
You might be thinking of what happens with a photon that get sent out from a light-source in the front of a accelerating ship, wandering to the aft where you receive it. But then you're thinking energy, and not times arrow.

And as I understands it, when it comes to the energy in a constantly accelerating ship, as that is equivalent to the photon falling into a gravity well, it will blue shift to you sitting further down the gravity well. The same goes for a non-constant acceleration.

Associating the changing frequency with timely 'durations'?

If we would use the light waves as a clock, defining 'times arrow' as ten cycles per second. Then measuring the wave inside that accelerating ship finding it to be twenty cycles per second as it now is compressed relative us. We then could assume that a second now was of a longer duration than before. So far I'm with you, assuming that I'm right in my assumptions about what happens with the light here.

This reasoning is slightly wrong, the clock measuring it inside the ship would be as influenced by gravity, being matter waves, as all other waves. For it to work we will have to assume someone still relative the acceleration measuring that light. So now I'm dropping into 'frames of reference' anyway, comparing between them. But it still works I think.

But notice that the 'durations' I'm discussing as 'never changing', those measured inside any 'frame of reference', or 'room time geometry', won't change. They will, to you, be of the exact same 'duration' as always.

Why I think this works is because the photon will 'cycle up' in 'energy' relative you watching it as it 'falls' into that gravity well. And so should you, assuming that matter-waves react to gravity the same as ordinary waves do. And the reason you do have nothing to do with motion, rather your proximity to the gravity well? 

But, and this is a big 'but'. Either it's like i think but then it can't be only the gravity, can it? No, it has to be the whole 'room time geometry' hasn't it? not only gravity but the speed in itself.. Or I'm totally bicycling up the walls :)


But then consider what happens if you're up very close to light speed, now turning of your engines, not accelerating any more. According to my earlier reasoning the 'gravity well' that our engine created stops to 'exist'. And as we now are uniformly 'coasting' there is nothing differing us from any other uniformly moving object. Inside that ship the light from your light-bulb no longer will show you any other cycles than it would do from any other uniformly moving, or if you like, inertial object. So does this mean that the relativistic phenomena created by my velocity, outside the ship, have disappeared, just because I turned of the engine? The light from suns in front of me no longer blue shifted relative me?

Not as I know. So using the frequency as a proof for a time dilation inside your own frame of reference? I don't know, you got a point though. But then if we want to use that as a 'acid test' a time dilation only can come to be when accelerating, and as soon as you stop accelerating, no matter your velocity, all time dilation should 'stop'? Also it becomes a question of the Lorentz contraction, as that one still should be there, even with the engines of.

If the 'time dilation' only exist in your acceleration, then if we still see a Lorentz contraction outside the ship? Would that be real? Then you have two ways of 'shortening a journey.

A Time dilation & Lorentz contraction when accelerating
A Lorentz contraction only when 'coasting', moving uniformly.

Alternatively no Lorentz contraction at all as soon as you start 'coasting', no matter what velocity you got from your former acceleration.

Or defining only a 'time dilation' as being real.

Pick your choice :)
==

I'm open for suggestions :)
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 02:47:27 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #169 on: 02/02/2011 22:32:08 »
Another interesting point. If that reasoning was true, then the 'aging' one experience inside that ship is a relation to gravity, not speed per se.

I kind'a like that idea actually :)
==

It fits very nicely with my question what the ultimate rest frame for matter is.
I suggested that it was infalling, into a black hole, if anyone remember.
That means, matter will only be 'at rest' at 'c', aka 'infinite gravity'

And then we have several statements coming together.

'Times arrow' becomes a function of gravity.
And 'speed/velocity' doesn't exist, neither does 'distance' as such.
Only gravity have a reality of its own.

I really need to think about this, it's very weird though :)
==

But to get back to my first question, would my heartbeats differ as compared to that clock?
Nope, I don't expect them too myself, so the 'even durations' I was thinking of should be the same? Which gives me a headache :)
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 22:49:22 by yor_on »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #170 on: 02/02/2011 22:45:41 »
I thought I saw something recently about atomic clocks that are sufficiently stable to demonstrate the effects of gravity on time by comparing the results from two stationalry clocks in different graviational fields. I don't seem to be able to find it again, so maybe I imagined it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #171 on: 02/02/2011 22:51:35 »
No, I seen some experiments sensitive enough to feel if you moved a clock down on the floor relative leaving its twin on the table recently on the net too. Probably have them somewhere?

Nevermind :)
We seen it both at least ::))
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #172 on: 02/02/2011 23:03:53 »
Using cycles for defining a time dilation becomes weirder still if we consider that we all consist of 'matter waves'. Then the question becomes if the distance to the gravity well will have an importance for the 'time dilation'

I don't think it have myself? what should define it is the gravitational metric/potential and that one will differ slightly with the distance, although how much?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #173 on: 02/02/2011 23:15:30 »
And that one neatly solves what a 'time dilation' is.

A 'time dilation' if so, should be a result of gravity acting on matter/waves, compressing them locally. But what causes the 'time dilation' is then not the speed, but the gravity? Still, we need the 'speed' to define a 'gravity' to the space-ship.

And then it should only be accelerating that does it, which should make Lorentz contraction, if still existing with engines of, an illusion :)

Ahhh ::))

Hmmm.

Or, which seems more reasonable to me, considering muons, leave Lorentz contraction as being just as real as a time dilation. Which then should be noticeable as you would see a different, much stronger 'time dilation' for a accelerating object than for a 'coasting', if so. But both would present a 'time dilation' to you, as the contraction is equivalent to a time dilation.

How about lightening up that ship one second, as measured from Earth, into 99.99999% of light speed? Then turn of the engine? What would that be equivalent to time-dilation wise? Would doing ten seconds at ??.???? of light speed give the exact same 'time dilation'.

would I age 'slowest' if I kept a constant acceleration/deceleration as compared to accelerating then coasting decelerating?

I don't know?
But it's a nice idea.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 23:47:56 by yor_on »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #174 on: 02/02/2011 23:19:09 »
No, I seen some experiments sensitive enough to feel if you moved a clock down on the floor relative leaving its twin on the table recently on the net too. Probably have them somewhere?

Nevermind :)
We seen it both at least ::))

Yes! Thanks, that was it! What's nice about that one is that it's a very simple and static configuration. No aeroplanes or satellites involved, no twins (unless we say the clocks are twins), and no trips around the Universe. The lack of variables minimizes any opportunity for general obfuscation and wavy arm explanations.

If time is an illusion, I wonder how we might explain the results of that experiment?



 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #174 on: 02/02/2011 23:19:09 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length