The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?  (Read 61368 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #225 on: 05/02/2011 20:45:38 »
Maybe :)

It's just thought experiments.

I look at it as 'relations' defining what we see. Those can be without us interacting, or with us interacting, setting up a specific experiment a certain way for example. To me the universe seems all to be relations, with some few exceptions, like gravity.
==

When it come to 'groups' I think of light. Imagine a very closeknitted web or matrix. Then shine a flashlight through it. Let someone stand on the other side in a dark room looking at the wall where that light gets represented. What do he see? Dots? move the matrix, will the dots move too?
==

Not a good one that one, the dots won't be seen to move, just 'flicker', but it's still what I'm wondering about :) what is light?
==

And yes, statistics isn't about defining a individual choice, it's about 'averages' and to look at those you will need chaos theory too.
==

Another thing, the inflationary theory, and that SpaceTime's expansion. Ever wondered how that is possible? I'm sure you have, just as I :) Why I take that one up? Well, it has a relation to how i see light, and distance too in fact. If it is right, as we're doing a lot of assumptions, let's assume that is is :) what does it tell us about 'particles'? That depends on how you define them in fact. You might want a 'particle universe' with all particles having a independent existence. Or you look at it like me, thinking that a particle seems to be defined by its relations. If you do you will still have 'matter' but on the quantum level you will have 'forces' if you like, interacting.

And now we come to the expansion, what does it do? It creates new distances, doesn't it? If it can do that then we know that one property of what we call space contain 'distance'. Can we measure it? Sure we can, as a distance, nothing else. So why doesn't particles 'expand'? The explanation as I understands it is 'gravity', gravity seems to be able to negate it. But Gravity is no 'force', is it? It's a property of SpaceTime, but no force. So why would the property differ inside a galaxy, as compared to the outside of it, or is it the 'space' differing? How about inertia? Does inertia gets stronger at a course-change being close to a neutron star, and weaker in deep space? It should shouldn't it? So even though 'gravity' might be 'everywhere' it will differ locally, and inside the galaxies it is 'stronger' than outside.

So, how do 'expansion' do it? does it pick out four dimensions and knit them together in each point of space-expansion. Or does the points come as 'whole' objects, containing distance and time directly they gets 'noticed'? That's how I see it, they have too. It's by far the simpler explanation. And where do those new points 'come from'? Nowhere I think, at least as we can see it. But this 'nowhere' is that then everywhere? It has to be, hasn't it? Just as 'gravity', and 'light' if my idea is right.

Why I 'drag it up' is primary to point out that we already accept the idea of 'stuff' coming from 'nowhere'. Another description of this light is 'virtual particles', and that weird idea of a 'quantum foam' existing. That foam isn't only in Space, it has to be in everything that exist, you and me too, but expressing itself differently depending on the relations defining it. 'Distance' seems to be constructed in the creation of new space, 'virtual particles' on the other hand seems not to bother with creating 'distance'. Speed as I said before is a matter of 'distance and time' combined. It leaves us with a weird SpaceTime, infused by all sorts of 'properties' from 'expansion' to 'virtual particles' existing 'everywhere' but expressing itself according to 'rules' we don't really know yet.

So that's what I suspect 'light' is too. Something 'existing' everywhere, but only expressing itself following strict guidelines. And that's a really, really, weird idea. But I might be all wrong in it, probably are :)
==

So what has it to do with 'time'? Assume that I'm right, then time is a 'property' too, it will be a 'constant' inside your own frame, 'room time geometry' as I like to call it :) and in fact regulate most everything you ever meet. It's an expression of change coming from the way we get modeled by the 'forces/relations' defining our macroscopic reality. That light have 'c' as a limit has nothing to do with speed. Speed is just what we see it as, but 'light' just interacts, limited by what relations it meet. And I would like the background to be, I don't really know? Gravity? Light? 'Energy'? Pick your choice. It's like we have all those 'rules', knitted together macroscopically they present us with Einsteins SpaceTime, on a quantum level they present us with 'particles' and 'forces'. Under that, and under Plank size there is something else. One of the things why I like Gravity is because it seems the 'smoothest' thing there are. You can't 'pick it apart', light has its quanta, and particles takes a 'place', even space has its foam. But 'Gravity', that's just a property, isn't it?

And time and 'c' must have a lot in common.
==

Think of it like 'levels'. From under a quantum level there is no 'space' there is no 'matter'. There is possibly a 'foam' or 'relations' existing. Their interactions have a relation to the QM-level which will have a relation to the macroscopic level. At the foam-level distance can't be. That what makes entanglements possible in QM. And distance seems to be a property of a SpaceTime over Planck-scale.
 
« Last Edit: 05/02/2011 23:51:37 by yor_on »
 

Offline briligg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
  • www.briligg.com
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #226 on: 06/02/2011 02:29:11 »
I think i need to read the Barbour piece on fqxi. I think i sort of follow what you are getting at, but i need more background. Anyhow, the idea of trying to model reality not in terms of points and particles, but systems, relations, and interactions, appeals to me. And as many people here, this 'c' thing definitely strikes me as a very suspicious character, probably up to all kinds of things.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #227 on: 06/02/2011 02:38:57 »
Yep, I quite agree. I mean I get a real headache reading myself, sometimes it makes no sense at all :) But I still find this 'c' weird. And that light, a shady character indeed :)

But it makes still sense, in a weird way :)
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #228 on: 06/02/2011 16:33:22 »
Try another example Sim, I'm not sure what you mean by 'quantity of motion'. Are you imagining the apples containing 'frozen motion'?

So if motion is 'time' and matter is 'motion' in some other state, what is gravity?
Gravity is oppressor of motion.Gravity oppresses quantity of motion(time) and quality of motion(speed). :P
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #229 on: 06/02/2011 17:00:05 »
So gravity would retard motion, that's one way to describe it Sim. And if we then define motion as 'times arrow', yeah maybe. Maybe we could play with 'c' for that one :) letting light be what is the trend setter for all 'motion'. And then turn it around and define a state of rest as infinite gravity, that as I think it is :). And that as all matter 'free falls' when 'accelerated' by gravity, without expending energy, if you look at a photon it actually 'gains energy' in its 'acceleration' as observed from a 'inertial observer' on Earth.

But motion in itself? Is that an expression of energy? If you have a object 'free falling' following a geodesic, does that object expend any energy? Will it be time dilated if close to 'c' relative its origin (Earth). Then it will answer your description Sim, but you will have a problem in that all uniform motion, from inside that black box will be the exact same. Meaning that you won't be able to differ the speeds and so they become equivalent. And if time dilation is defined by motion you will need to answer how the equivalence of all uniform motion can be solved. On the other hand, assuming that time dilation exists depending on 'speed', not only acceleration, any such description will have to answer the same question?

Got an idea how to answer that one?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #230 on: 06/02/2011 17:25:11 »
One possible answer is that a time dilation always is defined as between 'frames'. that it exist has not with this to do as the twin traveling at no time will find himself experiencing time 'differently', so just as all motion becomes undefinable in uniform motion so will a time dilation be. But then again, where is the equivalence if we have a different 'aging' of that twin, depending on his uniform speed?

You could also argue that, as seen from his own frame, the twin experience no 'time dilation' as time is 'as always' to him. But, what have then experienced this 'time dilation'? The rest of the universe? Only those parts of a universe 'slower' relative our twin, with those at rest relative it the same 'age', and those faster than our twin 'slower aging' than the traveling twin?

 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #231 on: 06/02/2011 18:16:21 »
Difference of oppression of motion turns into energy. ;)
« Last Edit: 06/02/2011 18:20:39 by simplified »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #232 on: 06/02/2011 18:53:46 »
You better explain that one in ah, 'plain English' Sim. I'm not sure how you think there?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #233 on: 06/02/2011 19:41:29 »
What if we look at it, after all, as 'density'? Like, if not 'space', but the whole 'SpaceTime' consisted of an unseen 'density' of its own, unseen by us. This 'density' would then be 'thicker' where invariant mass was and then 'thin out' in 'Space'. Then we could use 'motion' as a way to 'contract' the density, creating a friction that will slow our room time relative the rest of the universe.

Think of it as your 'time' having a even pace, marked out every meter. then as you meet the density the 'negative time expression' will space that time-meter out as seen from another frame of reference, a little like a 'gravity wave' is expected to do. In fact a 'gravity wave' should contract the 'invariant mass' and so increase the 'time dilation' slowing, whatever it wanders through, down relative any other frame.
==

Although I'm not sure of how it would do it? It's (the gravity waves) 'edge' should be able too anyway.
==

Or you can turn it around and say that the density is inverted. Define it as 'thicker', if you like, when out of the reach of 'invariant mass'.
==

Using the Higgs bosons is one possibility, although then I would like the space ships atoms to 'jiggle' as the overall 'mass' effectively should become greater the faster you move. But they don't..
==

Okay, the thing I keep coming back to is. What is a 'distance'. I can't seem to let that one go. Maybe I should change it though? Too 'what is a position' instead. In relativity a position is something defined by what relations you use. Maybe there are 'unchanging positions' when considering inertial frames? But as soon as you introduce an acceleration that balance get skewed. When it comes to uniformly moving it is a little different though. So, does there exist any single positional way to define objects in SpaceTime?

I doubt it.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2011 21:40:20 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 #234 on: 07/02/2011 17:32:29 »
You better explain that one in ah, 'plain English' Sim. I'm not sure how you think there?
If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #235 on: 07/02/2011 17:54:46 »
If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. :)

This all goes back to how to define what we talk about I think :)

Here's my definitions.

1. Gravity is a property, not a 'force'. That means I can look at 'space' as if it was a 'topology' having dips and heights and even 'swirls' and stuff, a little like a 'fluid'.

2. Energy is also a property, having no existence until a 'interaction' is being made. The relations of this interaction will define the energy, and photons red/blue-shift is the perfect example of such a relation.

3. Relative mass, momentum, potential 'energy', are also properties, only expressing themselves in a interaction. That means that although you may count on them, having them 'defined', they do not exist. And to prove that I use 'atoms jiggling' in that spaceship.

Because if they were true as anything more than a relation to something else, in this case 'speed' then they should get 'stored' in that spaceship.
==

To change it you will have to move outside what you measure, and then define the relations as being true on 'another plane' not reachable for mere humans. Which then may be true, I'm inclined to think it is, but to me there should still be something expressing those properties in 'real time' from the 'frame' that experience it e.g 'a speed'. Or we have a universe in where only 'interactions' count, and the rest becomes our framework for explaining and wanting to make sense of how those 'interactions' occur. And that we do inside a causality chain we either call 'times arrow' or 'entropy'. In fact it is our acceptance of that causality chain that makes us expect that there have to be something making sense in this universe, isn't it?

So if some spaceship speeds away in space relative us on earth. When does it get a 'gravity'? Only in the acceleration it seems to me. Does the ship 'store' any additional energy as measurable by those on that ship? Not as I know, no additional jiggling perceivable. Does it do so from any other frame of reference? Nope, no signs of 'glowing' radiation, as I now off?
==

In fact, that is wrong, from a frame of reference meeting that ship you will see light from it as being compressed/more energetic. But it is as true, that you from behind that ship will perceive it as 'stretched'/less energetic. So?
==

To see what I mean, define it as 'speed'.

Then look at it as leaving you, from the spaceships origin, Earth_1. It goes really fast doesn't it? But is the light reaching us from that ship now more 'energetic'? It isn't, but we still assign this 'energy' it shows to its 'speed. Now instead meet that ship, coming towards you on Earth_2. Wow it goes really fast, don't it, having a tremendous speed. And yeah, the light coming from it is really 'energetic' too. So, not knowing any of our physics. And only able to notice the light as  this 'speeds' expression. What would you on Earth_1 define speed as? And you on Earth_2.

We know that the energy just is a relation, but they don't. So, is this energy true? Yep, it will deliver more or less work. Does it have a relation to 'speed', yes it does. But to see if there really is more or less energy stored you need to look at the ship itself, in its own frame of reference. and there I don't expect any more jiggling of the ships 'atoms'.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2011 18:35:45 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 #236 on: 07/02/2011 18:32:11 »
If an object travels to mass then motion of this object goes in trap of gravity. Gravity likes to execute the own destination, therefore entices motion by additional energy. :)

This all goes back to how to define what we talk about I think :)

Here's my definitions.

1. Gravity is a property, not a 'force'. That means I can look at 'space' as if it was a 'topology' having dips and heights and even 'swirls' and stuff, a little like a 'fluid'.

2. Energy is also a property, having no existence until a 'interaction' is being made. The relations of this interaction will define the energy, and photons red/blue-shift is the perfect example of such a relation.

3. Relative mass, momentum, potential 'energy', are also properties, only expressing themselves in a interaction. That means that although you may count on them, having them 'defined', they do not exist. And to prove that I use 'atoms jiggling' in that spaceship.

Because if they were true as anything more than a relation to something else, in this case 'speed' then they should get 'stored' in that spaceship.
==

To change it you will have to move outside what you measure, and then define the relations as being true on 'another plane' not reachable for mere humans. Which then may be true, I'm inclined to think it is, but to me there should still be something expressing those properties in 'real time' from the 'frame' that experience it e.g 'a speed'. Or we have a universe in where only 'interactions' count, and the rest becomes our framework for explaining and wanting to make sense of how those 'interactions' occur. And that we do inside a causality chain we either call 'times arrow' or 'entropy'. In fact it is our acceptance of that causality chain that makes us expect that there have to be something making sense in this universe, isn't it?

So if some spaceship speeds away in space relative us on earth. When does it get a 'gravity'? Only in the acceleration it seems to me. Does the ship 'store' any additional energy as measurable by those on that ship? Not as I know, no additional jiggling perceivable. Does it do so from any other frame of reference? Nope, no signs of 'glowing' radiation, as I now off?
==

In fact, that is wrong, from a frame of reference meeting that ship you will see light from it as being compressed/more energetic. But it is as true, that you from behind that ship will perceive it as 'stretched'/less energetic. So?
I do not understand your english without math too. :P
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #237 on: 07/02/2011 18:38:07 »
Well then, use your math. Define all your variables clearly, so that we can understand them, then prove your idea.
==

(Sim, that doesn't mean that you can assign 'x' a property of 'tachyons', or 'gravity' for example, without defining how you come to this conclusion. So you need to build every statement clearly and with proofs.)
« Last Edit: 07/02/2011 18:46:11 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 #238 on: 07/02/2011 19:01:38 »
Well then, use your math. Define all your variables clearly, so that we can understand them, then prove your idea.
==

(Sim, that doesn't mean that you can assign 'x' a property of 'tachyons', or 'gravity' for example, without defining how you come to this conclusion. So you need to build every statement clearly and with proofs.)
Axioms do not need proofs.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #239 on: 07/02/2011 19:41:35 »
Yes, gravity is a axiom. But to use it without coupling it to acceleration or invariant mass will need a definition, at least for me :) Those are the two thing I know defining 'gravity'? Uniform motion do not define any gravity to itself, neither any 'inertia' as I know that is. And to assume gravity to exist in a uniform motion it needs to be noticed as is. But is is not there :)
==

If you do like I did and assume that there would be a infinite 'gravity' permeating 'SpaceTime', with matter and speed regulating its 'expression', you might get away with it though :)  But you would need to redefine a lot of other things too to make it work I think?

But if you think you can make sense of it, do it, it's a view I like actually :)
==

There is another possibility, equating 'energy' with speed though. That one we can lend from the compressed spring. After all, the spring won't glow even though it have a added 'real mass' from a compression. And that should be true how much you ever try to compress it, as long as you let the kinetic energy cool of. But it builds on assuming that a Lorentz contraction being real. If I do so, could I assume that the Lorentz contraction applied on a moving frame of reference, as defined from another frame, equals a compression? I don't know? We meet the same problem again there, all uniform frames of reference being equal and that you're the one defining who moves against who? So it would crave a way for the universe to define who is moving against who. But if I could the mass would change, wouldn't it? It must be noticeable as an added weight in a acceleration, at least? And that would then be an added 'gravity'. In a uniform motion weight lose its meaning, but the mass of the spaceship might still be higher due to the Lorentz contraction, if real?

Maybe?
=

The more I think of it the weirder it becomes huh :)
But if we have a state of singularity in 'SpaceTime' being Black Holes?
And for this we better define a singularity as non-communicative, with a one way reception.
Because then it will fit my idea of what gravity is.

Hawking radiation may come as a result of a 'interaction' but that interaction is not a communicative event. The event horizon is a real divider between a SpaceTime and a singularity, and the in-falling light can only point in one direction, into it, not from it. If we could transfer information by entanglements I would be wrong there, but so far we can't. If we can inject energy in a entanglement as a proposition I've seen recently, then the surviving pair particle inside our universe should have an added 'energy'. And as one idea is that the negation of a anti particle inside the event horizon should leave a surplus of 'energy', creating a 'uneven balance', then that might correct that 'balance' evening out the 'score'?

Or alternatively prove that a 'injection' of energy in a entangled particle by your measurement won't work. Pick your choice there, myself I would be very surprised if a added 'injection' of energy in your measurement would work, as that seems a communication to me. On the other hand plants seem to use entangled 'energy', but there I will assume it not to be the same injected 'energy/momentum' whatever, but just a efficient way of distributing what 'energy' a entanglement already has, instead to me proving the impression I already have of 'least energy expended' being a rule. If we assume that light and the arrow of time have a relation, as I see it now, radiation to my eyes being no more than time, both expressing their self in 'changes', both obeying 'rules/constants', just like that Feigenbaum constant 'rule', impossible to backtrack? Maybe? Anyway, I'm sure I can find more arguments, but for this it's enough. Then we have two remarkable things I think. We have 'gravity' and 'compression'. Why do a compression store mass? And what happens to a 'mass' once its compressed to a point particle? Does it 'radiate', or does it just disappear?
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 14:46:17 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #240 on: 09/02/2011 20:57:46 »
Rereading you Sim. Are you using Newtons definitions? Quantity of matter as mass, and Quantity of motion as the product of velocity and mass?

Then quantity of matter as mass makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how you think of quantity of motion as the product of velocity and mass? Do you include for example momentum and/or relative mass in that? Because that's the mechanical laws we use since Newton? Well, momentum may be new but 'relative mass' is a concept that have followed us a long time, in one shape or another.

So how do I look at 'gravity'? Simple, to me it's what's not explained. How did Einstein reach the rest of his conclusions?

"Einstein bases SRT on two fundamental principles: the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. The principle of relativity originated in Galilean-Newtonian mechanics: Any frame of reference in which Newton's law of inertia holds (for some period of time) is now called an inertial frame of reference. From the laws of mechanics it follows that, if one such inertial frame exists, then an infinity of them must: All frames of reference (and only such frames) moving with constant velocity with respect to a given inertial frame are also inertial frames. All mechanical experiments and observations proved to be in accord with the (mechanical) principle of relativity: the laws of mechanics take the same form in any of these inertial frames.

The principle of relativity, as Einstein stated it in 1905, asserts that all the laws of physics take the same form in any inertial frame-in particular, the laws of electricity, magnetism, and optics in addition to those of mechanics."

So we seem to agree there? We both define your own 'room time geometry' as uniquely 'the same'. The funny thing about that is that the revelation of all frames outside your own being 'different' blinds people. The only way we use it is in defining it as 'entropy' or 'the arrow of time', but to my eyes it's a 'constant' of sorts.

Gravity then?

"he assumed that a person cannot distinguish whether he is in a gravitational field or under constant acceleration, i.e. these two things are equivalent. This assumption provided a link between gravity and mass, or gravity and energy. He concluded then that mass and energy must affect the gravitational field. Secondly, he stated that the gravitational field is not actually a force as Newton has described, but instead a curvature in space. To put it in simple words, the bodies are affected by gravity not because of a force directly exerted on them but because space is curved and therefore they have to follow space's grid. The presence of mass or energy does not affect the bodies directly; it affects the space first, and then the bodies move in this curved space. Earth always moves in a straight line (not in the Euclidian sense though). The presence of sun curves space, and therefore curves this straight line and forces earth to appear to be moving in an ellipse... Imagine being in a sea (or pool) using your finger to create ripples on the water. The presence of your finger in the water creates these waves and alters the geometry of water, it's not flat anymore. If you look through the rippled water you'll see the bottom distorted. Well, the same things happens to 3D space if you try to move your finger like that on the air! Your finger has mass and it actually can create ripples in space... The only reason you cannot see them as in the water is that the mass of your finger is so small that the ripples it creates are of the tiniest magnitude; there are so small that do not affect anything considerably."

Now, this analogue made by the author is rather cool. The problem with it is that it gives SpaceTime a 'density'. Do we accept that? I'm not sure I do. What we can say is that any description we use built on previous experiences probably are wrong when describing 'SpaceTime. It's a very large step between looking at SpaceTime from the viewpoint of celestial mechanics versus as compared to relativity, and to drag over concepts that works so well on our earthly scale to explain the universe?
« Last Edit: 09/02/2011 21:06:39 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #241 on: 11/02/2011 03:54:57 »
This is some questions I have. First, why do I keep on about 'relations'? Look at the universe, you have space, all empty. No matter what we expect on the quantum level there isn't a 'thing' in empty space macroscopically. It's a dark lonely emptiness with some small islands of matter. Do particles exist on their own in space? Not readily, and not alone, as I know it? And I'm not talking bosons here, but particles of restmass. Now look at it from the viewpoint of 'relations'. Then those islands sparkle with relations, they are the most concentrated places of relations existing. How do matter 'grow', and, why can it 'grow'? How can we consist of a 'insurmountable' amount of energy, each one of us, and still be able to function, transform other types of matter into ourselves and use it?

It has to be another way of looking at it. And doing it as relations seems to work for me. Think of the question we had recently here, what will happen if we could 'time travel' to the 'past'. Would we land where we started, or in space as the earth and the universe are moving in time. I said that it all should adapt, all dimensions together, as it should be one undivided 'SpaceTime'. The implications of that are staggering to me suddenly. Because I also think of the universe as a place that have this rule of 'least energy expended'.

Can you see what that way of looking at it implies? That the whole universe would adapt to your 'time travel'. Now, if that way of looking is right then a Lorentz contraction suddenly have a much larger possibility of being 'real', instead of just some geometric illusion. Because when we see it we are in fact 'time traveling', even if in the other direction temporary, in time that is.

So can we test that idea? I think Einsteins ideas already have done that. And he seems to be right too. You have a unique arrow of time, in that arrow, no matter what you do, times arrow will be the same. But the 'universe at large' will adapt to certain properties, invariant mass and motion. And that is not really what I expected if it is correct? What happened with the idea of 'least energy expended' here, if so? Well, when you 'time travel' do you really influence all other objects around you. Not if you stand where they are, so the rule may still work?

So what is wrong here? There is a dichotomy in that I might assume that when you use motion or invariant mass for your time travel you do change the universe at large and the fact that when meeting up with your twin you will find that he felt no such 'influences' acting upon him just because you traveled near light. So if I'm correct in my thinking and also assume that you really change the universe, aka, 'Lorentz contraction' and 'time dilation' both are 'real. Where does it place the 'interactions'?
« Last Edit: 11/02/2011 04:19:16 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1828
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #242 on: 11/02/2011 20:53:33 »
Quote
Axioms do not need proofs

Surely, axioms become axioms only because their proof has already been established, at least to the satisfaction of those who accept their axiomatic status.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • 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 #243 on: 12/02/2011 03:37:10 »
Yeah, a axiom is like one and one makes two.

Weird stuff like that :) But it is also a axiom that all uniform motion shows an absence of gravity, and inertia of course. Assigning a gravity to uniform motion would need a new definition, of either uniform motion, or gravity and inertia. That it follows a 'geodesic' induced by gravity, does not state that you can feel that gravity working on you in a 'black box' scenario. And that's also what make all uniform motion 'equivalent' to my eyes, and so all 'uniform motions/speeds' following that geodesic.

But yes, gravity must be there, even though unmeasurable in that uniform motion as we can observe light 'bending' around invariant mass, like the sun. But then we're discussing 'frames of reference' again. In the black box there is no way I know of proving it, ignoring tidal forces now, like frame dragging.
==

Reasoning along those lines you will find it natural to define it as being 'at rest' relative gravity. And if you find that natural you will need to look at where our definitions of gravity 'breaks down'. That should be a Black Hole as I see it, all light/time cones pointing one way. and if that is the 'state' where you will find matter disappear then, maybe, you might want to define that as the ultimate state of rest :). Quite questionable as you as easily then can assume all 'speeds' following a geodesic as being 'at rest', but it's still the state in where we expect matter to ??
« Last Edit: 12/02/2011 03:52:04 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 #244 on: 12/02/2011 15:01:29 »
Quote
Axioms do not need proofs

Surely, axioms become axioms only because their proof has already been established, at least to the satisfaction of those who accept their axiomatic status.
My definition of gravity is imperfect. But you have no definition of this at all. And at all you can only jump over sequence. :P
 

Offline hakaya

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #245 on: 15/02/2011 09:11:44 »
Time is in three parts in the future that never arrived and are available only in my dreams, man, 'which currently exists only to separate the small second and the last to go on forever in the memory man', but not always. return unless an error and we do tend to repeat.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #245 on: 15/02/2011 09:11:44 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums