The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?  (Read 61325 times)

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #75 on: 30/01/2011 09:27:42 »
QC Julian Barbour makes some sense to me :)
Great minds think alike.

I like his views and he is quite poetic presenting them. "the quantum universe is static. Nothing happens; there is being but no becoming. The flow of time and motion are illusions." comes close to how I see it too. the difference possibly being that I define it as 'emergences', and as such having a 'reality' by its own for each 'scale' defined , as we look at it.

Ahem :)

A sweet Pdf.
Thnx.

He is on the dot - something I tried explaining to Geezer but failed miserably.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1826
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #76 on: 30/01/2011 21:34:01 »
I found Julian Barbour's book heavy going in places, but, apart from a few details, I felt that "Platonia" had much in common with the concept of an infinite cosmos, in which everything "is", and all change is illusion resulting from limited perception.   
 

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 #77 on: 31/01/2011 08:48:45 »
something I tried explaining to Geezer but failed miserably.

QC, kindly point me to the bit where you tried to explain. I must have missed it.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #78 on: 31/01/2011 08:54:53 »
something I tried explaining to Geezer but failed miserably.

QC, kindly point me to the bit where you tried to explain. I must have missed it.

Are you kidding? I went to witts end last time trying to explain this to you, and you were being infinitely stubborn. I'll find it for you.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #79 on: 31/01/2011 09:08:27 »
Simplified:

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"


QC:

This is also wrong. This is a Newtonian definition of time. Time does not equal motion.

Geezer

Time is measured in terms of motion. Just because it's Newtonian, it does not mean it's "wrong".

Also, unless you are only trying to start an argument, if you believe something is wrong, it would be nice if you provided an explanation for why you think it's wrong.

Can you explain how you are able to measure time without motion?


QC: qouted Ron Hughs and said

This is probably the best explanation I've heard so far. However, just because we have more than one moving object in our universe does not mean that clocks necesserily tick.

Explaining why is a little harder to explain. Time evolution, like you would find in the Schrodinger equation (you could even look at the writeup recently which has a small part on the evolution equation) is a type of diffeomorphism. Time constraints in a classical Hamiltonian will eventually find the Schrodinger Equation effectively having no time description.

This is called the Wheeler de Witt equation, and its at the heart of quantum theory and General Relativity.


QC: qouted Geezer

Oh it is wrong. Motion does not equate to time. In general relativity motion ceases to exist, we have what are called pure gravity models. If the universe was an object, internal energies ceases to move due to the Wheeler de Witt equation.

Geezer

That does not answer my question. How do you measure time?

QC

We are not sure you can in General Relativity. Matter fields vanish, and what is left is an energy field which does not change at all.

In quantum theory, it looks like an approach to this is to measure motion as static frames of tiny little moments called the Planck Time. In theory, time does not have flow, but is a succession of tiny beginnings and ends, each existing for the smallest frame of time possible, and so does not contain a motion as such, not a continuous one any way.


Geezer

Yes, but how do you measure time without motion?

QC

That's the stubborn illusion of reality Einstein often talked about. Past and future seem to be stubbornly persistent illusions - motion is measured with our equations, but the truth and crux of the matter is that a unified approach will not use the classical postulations of equations of motion. They will adhere to support the framework of relativity.

Geezer

How can you say it's wrong to use motion to measure time when you apparently have no idea how to meausure it?

QC

I say it's wrong, as in it being a wrong approach. I say wrong approach, because any other approach at the moment would not fit the requirements of the theory.

Of course, it may turn out we no longer will require the classical constraints of the theory on time evolution. It may turn out that quantum theory develops an understanding of what we experience, and the quite obvious contradictory statements of General Relativity.


Geezer

Oh! So now you are saying that we are still constrained by the classical theory. You were only speculating that the macroscopic theory of time may have to change because it is inconsistent with the quantum view.

So, there was nothing wrong with Simplified's statement after all.




By this point I was getting quite frustrated. You where being highly pedantic with each reply I gave you, no matter how I summed the posts up to you....




QC

No it is wrong. My last post is stating if theory was wrong.

That is like saying a hypothetical Tom would be right also, when he states that electrons don't exist as a wave function round the nuclei of atoms... because there is that chance theory is wrong. Science doesn't operate like that, usually we say interpretations that don't fit theory are wrong, not the other way around until experimentation proves otherwise.


Geezer

Yes, but that's all a big bum steer, so let's try to stick to the question at hand.

Other than repeatedly insisting it is wrong, you have failed to demonstrate that there is anything wrong with the statement "Time is a function of motion." You have even said that we are constrained by the classical theory of time.

You can't simply throw out a theory that works perfectly well and fail to replace it with anything! Clearly, you don't know much about how real science works, because if we did that every time we found an inconsistency, science would be nothing but chaos.

What I think you should be saying is that there is an apparent inconsistency between the quantum views and the macroscopic views. That does not mean that any view is wrong. It just means that we have not yet resolved the inconsistencies. (BTW, it's quite possible we never will.)

Somebody might come along with a great theory next week that stands both the macroscopic views and the quantum views on their heads, but even if they do, we'll continue to use the old models for a considerable time before we discard them entirely.





Now I simply got angry. How can you say I have not attempted to explain myself despite the several exhanges we have had???



QC

There are a great array of papers on time here. Some of them touch on the topic that time ceases to exist where movement is involved, others are wholey dedicated to the topic. There is also a paper on the topic of no flow existing in time, which leads to the conclusions of a quantized time.

 http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1

These are all the references one needs.


Geezer

I'm disappointed you are not able to explain this for yourself. You seemed so adamant in your assertions.

Do any of them explain how your watch, or the clock in your PC measure time without measuring motion?





Which is an understatement. I have been able to explain myself, and I was more than adamant in my assertions. I quite simply and clearly told you that time does not have a newtonian flow that time is quantized, and general relativity has equations in the field theories where movement finally ceases to exist, due to diffeormorphism constraints on the theory. How this is not explaining myself clearly is beyond me. You were just being difficult, and have been off with me ever since, hence why you banned me for the three days for nothing. I said That I did not regret the thing I said, and you banned me after a sufficient warning. But because I NEVER regretted saying what I said, you decided to get super personal about it. Well there, that's the story in balamory.
 

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 #80 on: 31/01/2011 11:33:12 »
Now QC, some of it I agree with, other not so much. I know that QM want everything to become 'quanta' of some sort. And if we look above Plank-scale it seems to work. So redefining it I would say that above Plank scale we should be able too see 'quanta'. Does that mean that we have defined the 'smallest things'? Well, inside SpaceTime we might have done so. But then we come to what creates a SpaceTime. And there we seem to have a lot of 'stuff' that I see as being under Plank scale. So, would SpaceTime exist without that other 'stuff'? I don't think so. Can we say that those too are 'quanta'? Nope.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #81 on: 31/01/2011 14:48:26 »
Now QC, some of it I agree with, other not so much. I know that QM want everything to become 'quanta' of some sort. And if we look above Plank-scale it seems to work. So redefining it I would say that above Plank scale we should be able too see 'quanta'. Does that mean that we have defined the 'smallest things'? Well, inside SpaceTime we might have done so. But then we come to what creates a SpaceTime. And there we seem to have a lot of 'stuff' that I see as being under Plank scale. So, would SpaceTime exist without that other 'stuff'? I don't think so. Can we say that those too are 'quanta'? Nope.

That old age question, of how to create a dynamical vacuum seems to interest people the most. Whatever happened to the idea something can simply, be.
 

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 #82 on: 31/01/2011 15:34:32 »
Well QC. It's more than to 'be' to me?
One of the really big fundamental questions about our universe is how to see it.
As a 'flow' having no 'quanta' at its possibly 'fundamental' plane, or if it is made out of 'quanta'. There are three directions you can go here. Quanta, Flow, or both. I'll go for both :)

And the thing differing them being our perception of 'scales' inside our 'arrow of time'. Maybe, if we had the eyes of a God, we would find them all to be one 'whole expression' where what we call QM and macroscopic loses its definitions? I don't know there but I find that approach to be more possible than to give only one of them the 'origin'. And if I'm right then there is your 'be'.
==

The idea of a flow as the opposite to a 'discrete event' comes from us, inside our arrow.
Take that arrow away, then show me a quanta?
And without being able to do so, where then is the 'flow'?
Nowhere.
« Last Edit: 31/01/2011 15:41:52 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 #83 on: 31/01/2011 16:08:32 »
You can also look at it this way I think.

Everything working in a linear procession are in need of 'durations' under which it transforms. That's life, all sorts of life, and also matter. Light is something interacting inside three dimensions and time without the need to take a 'place' in those, according to the Pauli exclusion principle, so light is a slightly different proposition.

But for everything else we know there is a need for a positional, even if steered by probability when defining, 'place' in our 'room time geometry'. From there comes the idea of our 'quanta' aka 'thingies' needing a 'duration'. But for a 'thingie' to have a duration and a singular 'existence' there is needed a 'interface' in where it does not. That's 'built in' in all such definitions. The way around that is to define it as a 'flow' in where all 'thingies' are, in some way, inseparable. But our universe don't seem to care for neither of those definitions, or rather for both, simultaneously in fact as shown by the two slit experiment.

So whom am I to declare the universe wrong?
==

And it's from this concept the idea of a 'background' comes. In a universe of 'thingies' having their own durations and existence the need for a 'background' from where they show themselves is self evident. In a flow the need for a background disappears as there is nothing 'separating' it. But I think our universe are both, and that it is where you stand conceptually that makes you see one or the other. And that's pretty da*n mystical, ain't it :)
« Last Edit: 31/01/2011 16:21:46 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 #84 on: 31/01/2011 16:44:52 »
QC tried to show time definition.We did not see result.[8D]
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #85 on: 31/01/2011 16:55:54 »
QC tried to show time definition.We did not see result.[8D]

The definition of time... In a model where time does not exist, like relativity, how can you define such a thing? You can only define it using our outdated concepts, such as flows and enrtopy and movements. That is where theory breaks down, and no longer yields us truthful results.

Also, how do you define something which can never be an absolute?
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #86 on: 31/01/2011 16:56:15 »
Moreover, if time flows, what is it flowing relative to?
 

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 #87 on: 31/01/2011 17:21:02 »
Yeah, without 'times arrow' neither flow nor 'discrete events' make sense. Both need the arrow to exist. Without it you just might get your 'be' though, but even so there is needed to be 'something' creating our arrow. And that's why I find those constants so interesting.
 

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 #88 on: 31/01/2011 17:27:33 »
QC, you still have no explained how its possible to measure time without motion. Or are you saying time does not exist?

 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #89 on: 31/01/2011 17:29:04 »
Yeah, without 'times arrow' neither flow nor 'discrete events' make sense. Both need the arrow to exist. Without it you just might get your 'be' though, but even so there is needed to be 'something' creating our arrow. And that's why I find those constants so interesting.

However, if everything is static, in the world of fundamental particles, where time does not exist with a flow, how can an arrow exist? If everything is static like Julian proposes, then there is no before, no after event because events are strictly defined under passing moments, which is just a fancy way of looking at time.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #90 on: 31/01/2011 17:30:21 »
QC, you still have no explained how its possible to measure time without motion. Or are you saying time does not exist?



I have said to you time does not exist. Why do you ask this again? I told you in relativity, time ceases to exist, and moving clocks no longer exist.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #91 on: 31/01/2011 17:32:02 »
If motion ceases to exist because diffeomorphism invariances leads to the Wheeler de Witt equation in GR, then time cannot exist. Moving objects is what makes time happen in relativity. If moving clocks cease to exist, then time as we know it also ceases to exist.
 

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #92 on: 31/01/2011 17:48:51 »
QC tried to show time definition.We did not see result.[8D]

The definition of time... In a model where time does not exist, like relativity, how can you define such a thing? You can only define it using our outdated concepts, such as flows and enrtopy and movements. That is where theory breaks down, and no longer yields us truthful results.

Also, how do you define something which can never be an absolute?
Show the history without quantity of Earth motion.Show calculations of changings without quantity of motion.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #93 on: 31/01/2011 17:55:16 »
QC tried to show time definition.We did not see result.[8D]

The definition of time... In a model where time does not exist, like relativity, how can you define such a thing? You can only define it using our outdated concepts, such as flows and enrtopy and movements. That is where theory breaks down, and no longer yields us truthful results.

Also, how do you define something which can never be an absolute?
Show the history without quantity of Earth motion.Show calculations of changings without quantity of motion.

So many of you are quick to believe time does not pass for a photon, yet relative to us, they seem to move from place to place, and still take 8 mins to reach us from the sun...

...Why is the concept of this so difficult for people to comprehend... Einstein said time was an illusion. We are stuck in that sphere of illusion, so we still percieve objects and planets and stars all move to the tune of time. But the equations of relativity tell us something quite different - we cannot jump out of this sphere of illusion. This illusion will always seem contradictory to us: But I have faith in relativity. I have faith in quantum mechanics. So did Einstein, and so did every other famous scientist who knew about the Wheeler de Witt equation.

We are told that time does not exist in GR. It will never deter me to believe time does not exist, just because others cling to their own delusions on motion present in their sphere of lies.
« Last Edit: 31/01/2011 17:59:42 by QuantumClue »
 

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 #94 on: 31/01/2011 18:02:53 »
QC, you still have no explained how its possible to measure time without motion. Or are you saying time does not exist?



Geezer, I haven't followed all of your discussion, but as I see it. Can there be any 'events' taking place without a 'arrow of time'? I don't think so myself, all change need a duration, and to get a duration some sort of 'arrow' should be involved. So if there is something existing without this arrow there need to be another principle defining it. If we look at 'time' from 'motion' then maybe you might assume that just as motion can take all types of direction, maybe 'times arrow' can do the same?

If it could, yeah I know, this is not 'main stream' :) But if it could, would it be possible to find 'states' where that arrow more or less took out itself? And if there could be something like that, a little like particles and anti particles annihilating each other, what would that look as to us? A motion? Or no motion at all? A arrow existing, or no arrow at all?
 

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 #95 on: 31/01/2011 18:16:07 »
You can also turn the concept around.

Assume that what really is is something where 'times arrow' doesn't have a direction. Then a universe, any universe of a duration, will have to be a 'exception' of sort. And as soon as you introduce a duration to something you also will create a 'distance'. Distance is something defined by you measuring durations, and defining differences between them, like naming this A and that B. Speed is a distance measured under an arrow of time.

So maybe?
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #96 on: 31/01/2011 18:18:00 »
QC, you still have no explained how its possible to measure time without motion. Or are you saying time does not exist?



Geezer, I haven't followed all of your discussion, but as I see it. Can there be any 'events' taking place without a 'arrow of time'? I don't think so myself, all change need a duration, and to get a duration some sort of 'arrow' should be involved. So if there is something existing without this arrow there need to be another principle defining it. If we look at 'time' from 'motion' then maybe you might assume that just as motion can take all types of direction, maybe 'times arrow' can do the same?

If it could, yeah I know, this is not 'main stream' :) But if it could, would it be possible to find 'states' where that arrow more or less took out itself? And if there could be something like that, a little like particles and anti particles annihilating each other, what would that look as to us? A motion? Or no motion at all? A arrow existing, or no arrow at all?

This is a good point which I bolded.

How can there be an arrow? It is part of our psychological makeup which makes us think there is some arrow which extends from our past to our future states. If that be the case, we would be able to map some origin in the universe, where everything came from, then draw a line, and point it to the future, but there is no such method because big bang occurred in every point in spacetime. The very fact the universe cannot be geometrically-modelled to suit a past and a future with a single arrow is evidence enough that such a psychological arrow of time, is exactly psychological. Not a true physical representation.
 

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 #97 on: 31/01/2011 18:32:36 »
*There we differ QC :)

To me a arrow either is 'there' or it isn't. and what seems to make it possible for us are e.g the constants, like the 'Plank scale' for example. There are a lot of interesting constants and I hope we will find more. To me they seem to stake out the 'borders' for SpaceTime, it's just a question of finding the right ones defining how the 'arrow' can work.

And I differ between 'Time' as a concept and the 'arrow of time' myself. 'Time' as such need no specific arrow, and to us it will seem as unchanging, but any universe experiencing events will need arrow(s) to be defined.

So yes, to me 'times arrow' is more than just psychological. In relativity you have only one unchanging duration. Your expiration date will be the same no matter what you do, so to speak. You can live next to black hole or on Earth, traveling almost at lights speed or having a prolonged beach party, your clock will still measure the same amount of heartbeats in your 'frame of reference'. That someone else can give you another 'time definition' won't matter for this.
 

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #98 on: 31/01/2011 18:33:24 »
Psychological Arrow of time

''Psychological time is, in part, the cataloguing of ever increasing items of memory from continuous changes in perception. In other words, things we remember make up the past, while the future consists of those events that cannot be remembered. The ancient method of comparing unique events to generalized repeating events such as the apparent movement of the sun, moon, and stars provided a convenient grid work to accomplish this. The consistent increase in memory volume creates one mental arrow of time. Another arises because one has the sense that one's perception is a continuous movement from the known (Past) to the unknown (Future). Anticipating the unknown forms the psychological future which always seems to be something one is moving towards, but, like a projection in a mirror, it makes what is actually already a part of memory, such as desires, dreams, and hopes, seem ahead of the observer.

The association of "behind = past" and "ahead = future" is itself culturally determined. For example, the Chinese and the Aymara people both associate "ahead = past" and "behind = future".[8] In Chinese, for instance, the term "the day after tomorrow" literally means "behind day" while "the day before yesterday" is referred to as "front day" and in Hindi (an Indian Language), the term used for "tomorrow" and "yesterday" is the same.[citation needed]

The other side of the psychological passage of time is in the realm of volition and action. We plan and often execute actions intended to affect the course of events in the future. Hardly anyone tries to change past events. Indeed, in the Rubaiyat it is written (sic):

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
  Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
  Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
- Omar Khayyám (Fitzgerald translation)''


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

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #99 on: 31/01/2011 18:34:31 »
*There we differ QC :)

To me a arrow either is 'there' or it isn't. and what seems to make it possible for us are e.g the constants, like the 'Plank scale' for example. There are a lot of interesting constants and I hope we will find more. To me they seem to stake out the 'borders' for SpaceTime, it's just a question of finding the right ones defining how the 'arrow' can work.

And I differ between 'Time' as a concept and the 'arrow of time' myself. 'Time' as such need no specific arrow, and to us it will seem as unchanging, but any universe experiencing events will need arrow(s) to be defined.

So yes, to me 'times arrow' is more than just psychological. In relativity you have only one unchanging duration. Your expiration date will be the same no matter what you do, so to speak. You can live next to black hole or on Earth, traveling almost at lights speed or having a prolonged beach party, your clock will still measure the same amount of heartbeats in your 'frame of reference'. That someone else can give you another 'time definition' won't matter for this.

It's like another illusion see. What we think is an arrow of time, is just our psychological makeup, cataloging events as they unturn to us.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #99 on: 31/01/2011 18:34:31 »

 

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