The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: is there space for time  (Read 3213 times)

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
is there space for time
« on: 16/03/2012 22:44:09 »
if moovement thru space is a discontinuous process:

it makes sense to say "time is what happens between the point A of space that a particle occupies and another point B that the same particle occupies".

if moovement thru space is a continuous process:

there is no space for anything else to happen between particle=at location A and paricle = at location B,

in other words, in  a continuous position distribution space, there is no space for time.

is there space for time?



 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #1 on: 16/03/2012 23:13:15 »
Try to think of Space and Time as one thing. 

Does that help at all?
 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #2 on: 16/03/2012 23:15:22 »
moovement is discontinuous ->time is a quantity, that happens between A and B positions of a particle in motion

moovement is continuous -> time can exist only as a quantity of 0 and as a quantity of infinitismal small proportion-> no time amd "no time"

if we are to have time, moovement must be a discontinuous process or rather space must be discontinuous or have the property thereof.

In case of continuous moovement, time can only be of quantity 0 or infinitesimally small quantity.

in this -> The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. -> hence time dilation inherits a bias towards discontinuous position travel.

or, time dilation itself is a proof of a continuous space moovement universe, when time infact is merely an "optical" illusion, since in continuous moovement of anything from A to B, time cant happen. and the measured (and observed) dilation is nothing more than the added quantity of space travel in an continuous space-travel universe.






 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #3 on: 16/03/2012 23:18:36 »
Try to think of Space and Time as one thing. 

Does that help at all?

yes, i am sort of trying to think of them like that, as quantities that cant occure simultanely
 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #4 on: 16/03/2012 23:23:48 »
Try to think of Space and Time as one thing. 

Does that help at all?

yes, i am sort of trying to think of them like that, as quantities that cant occure simultanely

also: if light is to travel at constant speed at different wave lenghts, this could only happen if change of position in general accours in an discontinuous manner.

 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #5 on: 17/03/2012 02:38:49 »
A fantastic question. I will answer it as quickly as possible.

There is no space for time. Time is geometrical feature of Einsteins equations. In fact, when you turn the hand back of time, you will find you treat physics as though it came from geometrical features. I assure you now, that no theory entertaining time can exist. I refer you Julian Barbour and ''The Nature of Time''. The nature of time is a REAL problem in physics. We cannot unify physics in the order we do in the low energy epoch. You will find that this is actually called geometrogenesis. The low energy phenomenon happened later in the universes history when there was enough spatial expansion. Thus matter also appears from geometry, atleast by low energy speculations.
 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #6 on: 18/03/2012 21:37:03 »
A fantastic question. I will answer it as quickly as possible.

There is no space for time. Time is geometrical feature of Einsteins equations. In fact, when you turn the hand back of time, you will find you treat physics as though it came from geometrical features. I assure you now, that no theory entertaining time can exist. I refer you Julian Barbour and ''The Nature of Time''. The nature of time is a REAL problem in physics. We cannot unify physics in the order we do in the low energy epoch. You will find that this is actually called geometrogenesis. The low energy phenomenon happened later in the universes history when there was enough spatial expansion. Thus matter also appears from geometry, atleast by low energy speculations.

thank you, to try and "draw" my reasoning:  Imagine excange of positions (of one particle) happening in dicrete steps. you hava slots, A,B,C,D,... the particle dissapears from A, then appears in B, between A and B, time can happen.

or instead of discrete slots A,B,C,D,.. you have a straight continuous line where between any pair of two points there is always one more point. Here there is no space for time. There is just travel.

also, by stretching of space, intuitively i would wote for discontinuous travel, since the time :), to travel from point @ to point § at light speed is  not uniform, - @ and § are constantly more appart due to stretching of 'fabric' of space. i add to this also the case of different wavelenghts of light at constant speed. i say travel is discountinuous, and time is the quantity between @ and § or to put 'space' between them.

if we would to travel at the same speed of stretching of space, we would have mooved more than the stretching of space, because we moove discontinuously from A to B to C,... while it is taking "more time" to come from A to B due to stretching of space.

seemingly paradoxical: since A and B are constantly more apart, yes it takes more time to go from A to B, but we are "jumping" from A to B, not traveling the whole "distance", since this "distance" is time and not space. We can only travel in space. But on the same count, I claim traveling with speed of stretching od space means faster tavel thatn stretching od space.

but it is not really a paradox, since space is only point A and point B. it takes more and more <b>time</b> to travel from A to B, since 'space' is stretching. space is discountinuous, and what happens in between two points of space is time.

or

space is continuous and there is no time.

best
A



 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #7 on: 19/03/2012 04:38:14 »
If by ''continuous'' you mean space extends in any of the dimensions directions continuously then I am sure no one would deny this. If this is a continuous vs. discrete question, then it would seem that most would agree that when relativity and quantum mechanics are finally unified it might imply some kind of discreteness.

Keep in mind though, that time could not exist at big bang in any modern relativistic sense. There was no space (geometry) present and (since time is geometry) then there was no time either. Question now arises, is time even real?
 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #8 on: 25/04/2012 21:19:15 »
some kind of discreteness.


i am litteraly thinking that the red shift could be  consequence of buildup and expansion of time.

a 'particle of light' from far away would have to travel more and more 'time' since time is building up everywhere, thus would in space-time 'slow down' to the eye of distant observer, hence the red-shift.

but it might be a surprise, that the light source istn really drifting away, that the expansion of space-time that creates this 'illusion' of red shift itself is actualy caused precisely only and only by the fact that there is more and more time in time-space.

im saying, that the universe appears to be spreading with a growing rate, but it isnt. time-space is, but only due to buildup of time between discrete points of material space.

perhapse hence the C constant-limit. since you would be required to travel 'faster' than expansion of time in time-space.

this reasoning also makes it possible to have a infinitely small and infinitaly dense space. In  -0  < t  < 0 (BB) matter would be distributed as it is today, the same quantity only with no time yet it is a singularity-point. aloowing the first milisecond of time, the matter appears to have expanded, etc.

travel is thus only travel thru discrete points of matter-space. localy you travel according to other nearby objects, apparently in a continuous manner. But on scales, lets say beyond the gravitational pull, iz becomes apparent that the red shift would have to imply a discreteness of matter-space and a buildup of time inbetween these discrete matter-space-points.

localy you dont stretch with the expansion of space, gravity takes care of that. the galaxies are all drofting apart from each other, but are not increasing in size themselves. Gravity again keeps them as-is.

localy, gravity canceles the effect of time on expansion of time-space. beyond reach of gravity we get red-shift. This due to time expansion of space-time. And here, we get a perfectly discrete matter-space. The only difference between singularity and anything else is presence of time, gravity being infact only localy present at all times. eveen at t=0.

im growing more confident in this hypothesis, so please, if you wish challenge it with some more physics knowledge, because i lack it.
 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #9 on: 25/04/2012 21:27:16 »
this would also make gravity the exact opposite phenomena of time
 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #10 on: 03/05/2012 22:19:30 »
feature=relmfu

space is discrete, time is a quantity that is building up between points of discretely distributed space. Gravity holds things in place localy, but on the scale beyond gravitational effect, time has an effect of "stretching the spacetime" noticed by redshift. The universe is getting "bigger", but only in the sense of buildup of time. This gives as NO big Bamg and infinite time in both directions. The galaxies in this stretching space-time are drifting apart from each other FASTER than the speed of light, but are not increasing in size themselves, as so nothing that is under effect of curvature (gravity) isnt, at the same time as space-time is stretching. But only because of the effect of buildup of time. In the stretched space-time new matter can "popup" to existance, probbably not out of nothing, but probbably as the countereffect of the reverse process in black holes.

gravity seems to have some special characteristics (the curvature) which seem to be (again on a large scale) the exact opposite effect of time.

what remains to be accepted is, that time is infinite in both directions, and space itself is very much discrete.

I am researching reasons why this hypothesis could be overthrown (some lack of physical know-how of my own for instance), but sofar i seem to have been able to fit all new physics information quite nicely into the hypothesis.

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #11 on: 07/05/2012 00:17:08 »
The arrow is real.
We're all gonna die.

The point that one can make is to wonder what creates it.
You can refer it to 'change', maybe?

But it's also a very philosophical question, because for something to change, as in a displacement you're already presuming a arrow for it to do it in. To exchange 'time' and 'the arrow' for another name won't change that fact.
 

Offline wucko

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #12 on: 10/05/2012 00:32:14 »
the arrow exists, i do not mean that "time is limitless in both directions" is "the arrow doesnt exist". Only, that (while the arrow must hold*), in a discrete spaced timespace, there is no need for t=0 and we get a chance to reconcile faster than light expansion (cosm redshift at Z>1.4) [note to moderator: this is factography, not new theory!]

more on the discreteness hypothesis: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=44049.new#new

*note: there could be regions of spacetime where 2nd law of thermodynamisc IS reversed, infact  [url ="http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm"] Sidis in 1920[/url]s proposed that the 2nd law is not a law, since it is paradoxical, but rather a overwhelmiong possibility, he also reasoned that life as such is a reversal of the 2nd law. infact, one of the most comprehensive definitions of life is the reversal of 2nd law.
 

Offline Robro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #13 on: 24/06/2012 06:54:00 »
Without matter, there is no motion. Without motion, there is no time.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: is there space for time
« Reply #14 on: 24/06/2012 17:21:07 »

[note to moderator: this is factography, not new theory!]


Oh! You mean it's fiction then.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: is there space for time
« Reply #14 on: 24/06/2012 17:21:07 »

 

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