0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
How about your pendulem clock, I see no way that gravity can be affected by temperature.
Without energy, the entire concept of time has problems, since nothing would change. If nothing changed, time would be a meaningless concept.But that's not an issue in reality, since we can never remove all energy from a system. Even if we're at the zero-point energy (the lowest you can get in any system), there is still energy.
If I use the concept of 'virtual particles' any 'energy' is allowed as long, as it's fast enough whatever that means, under or over Plank time. That statement creates an question of what 'energy' really is thought to be, something 'unlimited' but regulated inside Plank time, or??Ah well, some day my head will stop aching, hopefully
Quote from: JP on 03/03/2012 15:21:39Without energy, the entire concept of time has problems, since nothing would change. If nothing changed, time would be a meaningless concept.But that's not an issue in reality, since we can never remove all energy from a system. Even if we're at the zero-point energy (the lowest you can get in any system), there is still energy.It only becomes meaningless when you removed both the 'arrow' and 'passage' of time. If the passage of time slows to the point where it is stationary then time has effectively stopped but the arrow of time still remains. As time is the measure by which things change then you could say that the concept of time under that condition is meaningless. Never the less, the arrow still remains.
Quote from: MikeS on 04/03/2012 07:31:46Quote from: JP on 03/03/2012 15:21:39Without energy, the entire concept of time has problems, since nothing would change. If nothing changed, time would be a meaningless concept.But that's not an issue in reality, since we can never remove all energy from a system. Even if we're at the zero-point energy (the lowest you can get in any system), there is still energy.It only becomes meaningless when you removed both the 'arrow' and 'passage' of time. If the passage of time slows to the point where it is stationary then time has effectively stopped but the arrow of time still remains. As time is the measure by which things change then you could say that the concept of time under that condition is meaningless. Never the less, the arrow still remains.If you remove all energy, then there is no arrow nor passage of time, since nothing ever changes. In other words, you can't draw an arrow of zero length, since you have no idea which way it points.
I agree, 'virtual photons' is a discussion by itself, just as indeterminacy Mike It's hard not to agree with JP there, I too believe that you need 'change' to find an 'arrow', or just 'time'. And any change should involve the concept of transformations of energy, as far as I can see. That's also why I find the universe so well planned, giving us a locally same 'arrow of time', no matter what you do, or go. Because it's that arrow that makes everything 'fit' for us, presenting us with a same environment, be it here on or Mars, timewise. You grow a flower, and it will behave the same (loosely speaking here, ignoring gravity etc) wherever you are.Imagine the opposite. That time indeed would 'tick' differently for you, slower at some places, faster at others. Time is a very localized concept, and of 'one even measure' as I think of it. The most interesting thing about it is how far you can scale it down. Myself I expect the arrow to break down around Planck scale, indeterminism taking its place. And the really fascinating thing is that you can only define something like 'indeterminacy' when using a arrow to study it from. Only then will the concept be visible, and meaningful.Without the arrow we would all be in a 'superposition'.
It is not necessary to have change to demonstrate the arrow of time, only the passage of time.
Quote from: MikeS on 04/03/2012 21:17:53 It is not necessary to have change to demonstrate the arrow of time, only the passage of time.Ok, as soon as you come up with a theory in which nothing changes, but we can measure time, let me know.
Quote from: JP on 04/03/2012 21:28:33Quote from: MikeS on 04/03/2012 21:17:53 It is not necessary to have change to demonstrate the arrow of time, only the passage of time.Ok, as soon as you come up with a theory in which nothing changes, but we can measure time, let me know.That is not what I said. What I said was "It is not necessary to have change to demonstrate the arrow of time, only the passage of time."A plumb-bob (weight on a string) demonstrates the arrow of time by pointing towards the center of the Earth's gravity. It does this without motion (change). Release it and it will accelerate in the same direction. This is proof of the arrow of time, both when static and in motion. In motion of course it also demonstrates the 'passage' of time.I don't think this is proposing a new theory, it's just common sense.
Quote from: MikeS on 05/03/2012 09:07:42Quote from: JP on 04/03/2012 21:28:33Quote from: MikeS on 04/03/2012 21:17:53 It is not necessary to have change to demonstrate the arrow of time, only the passage of time.Ok, as soon as you come up with a theory in which nothing changes, but we can measure time, let me know.That is not what I said. What I said was "It is not necessary to have change to demonstrate the arrow of time, only the passage of time."A plumb-bob (weight on a string) demonstrates the arrow of time by pointing towards the center of the Earth's gravity. It does this without motion (change). Release it and it will accelerate in the same direction. This is proof of the arrow of time, both when static and in motion. In motion of course it also demonstrates the 'passage' of time.I don't think this is proposing a new theory, it's just common sense.Sorry, that doesn't work. If you have no change a plumb bob hanging there tells you nothing. You have no way of knowing if it's floating in space or pulled by gravity until you try to move it (which requires motion and the expenditure of energy) or until you drop it (which requires motion).