The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is 'Time' and from what aspects of the Universe does it originate?  (Read 8848 times)

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
I would be very interested to hear anyone's simple explanation of gravity that does not include time?   Gravity is acceleration.  Acceleration is time dependent.

Anyone???

Gravity is more than acceleration I think. Because objects lying still on the ground with 0 acceleration are still subjected to gravity, otherwise they'd float. Acceleration can be used to simulate gravity, but it's not the same.

But that's besides the point. I can't explain gravity without time..

No it's not.  Gravity is acceleration.  The ground is accelerating upwards through space-time.  The ground is continuously travelling from a place where time is passing slowly to a place where time is passing faster.  This is acceleration.  If you place an accelerometer anywhere on the Earths surface at sea level it will give a readout of 1g acceleration.

You don't need to travel through any of the spacial dimension to accelerate.  You only need to accelerate through time.  This is gravity and it is what any large mass does.

That's why all objects fall at the same rate.  In a sense they are not actually falling but it is the Earth that is accelerating towards them.  It matters not whether it is a feather or a cannonball, the Earth accelerates toward them equally.

You might be interested to read my thread on gravity.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43495.0
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Gravity for me is simple. It is the presence of matter, which is the presence of curvature and is the presence of acceleration within the equations of relativity; this much he is partially correct, I've never truely doubted that. It's linking it directly with time which troubles me. I don't see time and gravity as synonymous objects. In fact, I see change, I don't see time per se. Only through the eyes of a mere human being, I can extrapolate that time is highly subjective and something I project as a ''feeling of past and future'' on the world outside. None of which actually exist.

My previous two posts explain why I believe, you can't talk about gravity without talking about time, or more correctly without talking about time dilation.

It is necessary to understand time dilation in order to understand gravity.  Surely, if time did not exist, there could be no time dilation and therefore no such thing as gravity.  Gravity exists and so does time.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Gravity for me is simple. It is the presence of matter, which is the presence of curvature and is the presence of acceleration within the equations of relativity; this much he is partially correct, I've never truely doubted that. It's linking it directly with time which troubles me. I don't see time and gravity as synonymous objects. In fact, I see change, I don't see time per se. Only through the eyes of a mere human being, I can extrapolate that time is highly subjective and something I project as a ''feeling of past and future'' on the world outside. None of which actually exist.

My previous two posts explain why I believe, you can't talk about gravity without talking about time, or more correctly without talking about time dilation.

It is necessary to understand time dilation in order to understand gravity.  Surely, if time did not exist, there could be no time dilation and therefore no such thing as gravity.  Gravity exists and so does time.

The dichotemy is much more complicated than that. If we were talking about time as being a local phenomenon, then yes this is true. If we are also talking time being experienced by Bradyons, or particles with mass, then time truely wasn't around until matter came out of the vacuum. But time for a universe, a universal global time vanishes. What is time then from the perspective of the universe if it does not exist globally? Is it only clocks moving below the speed of light that experience time, in which case the beginning of the universe certainly had no time and the end of the universe when all matter fields have returned to radiation fields, then the very future cone of our universe is also devoid of moving clocks.

Simply put, you can't have time without matter ... these moving relativistic clocks which tick off real time.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
I think Markoupoulou goes about it the right way. There is perhaps the idea of a fundamental time and a geometric time. Since we are concerned with fundamentals, time could not be fundamental if it strictly exists within geometry. This is because there was no geometry when the universe came into existence, so how can the universe have a time? There seems to be a geometric time, this stuff you associated with gravity and matter, but does it really exist? If only fundamental things are important, then how can time truely exist if our universe did not take any time during creation.... put it another way, experienced no geometry during creation?
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Ęthelwulf
I have answered most of your points in this thread.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43056.0

Gravity for me is simple. It is the presence of matter, which is the presence of curvature and is the presence of acceleration within the equations of relativity; this much he is partially correct, I've never truely doubted that. It's linking it directly with time which troubles me. I don't see time and gravity as synonymous objects. In fact, I see change, I don't see time per se. Only through the eyes of a mere human being, I can extrapolate that time is highly subjective and something I project as a ''feeling of past and future'' on the world outside. None of which actually exist.

My previous two posts explain why I believe, you can't talk about gravity without talking about time, or more correctly without talking about time dilation.

It is necessary to understand time dilation in order to understand gravity.  Surely, if time did not exist, there could be no time dilation and therefore no such thing as gravity.  Gravity exists and so does time.

The dichotemy is much more complicated than that. If we were talking about time as being a local phenomenon, then yes this is true. If we are also talking time being experienced by Bradyons, or particles with mass, then time truely wasn't around until matter came out of the vacuum. But time for a universe, a universal global time vanishes. What is time then from the perspective of the universe if it does not exist globally? Is it only clocks moving below the speed of light that experience time, in which case the beginning of the universe certainly had no time and the end of the universe when all matter fields have returned to radiation fields, then the very future cone of our universe is also devoid of moving clocks.

Simply put, you can't have time without matter ... these moving relativistic clocks which tick off real time.

There is little in the above that I do not agree with but my standpoint has not changed.
I agree that prior to the existence of mass, there was no time.  [Others might not agree on that as photons are supposed to create gravity in which case mass would not be necessary for the existence of time.]  However, one could debate whether before ,time, distance , speed and geometry all became meaningful concepts did the universe exist or was it just the quantum vacuum void?

Once the Universe became recognizable as the Universe I see no problem as to why there should not be a global or universal time in as much that it would be arrived at by taking an average of all of the local times.  If time is the relationship between energy and mass in the universe and the percentage of these is constantly changing then the global or universal time dilation factor is also constantly changing.  As stars are constantly converting some of their mass into energy then mass is decreasing as energy increases.  So one could predict that time is contracting.  A second now is shorter than a second in the cosmological past.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Ęthelwulf
I have answered most of your points in this thread.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=43056.0

Gravity for me is simple. It is the presence of matter, which is the presence of curvature and is the presence of acceleration within the equations of relativity; this much he is partially correct, I've never truely doubted that. It's linking it directly with time which troubles me. I don't see time and gravity as synonymous objects. In fact, I see change, I don't see time per se. Only through the eyes of a mere human being, I can extrapolate that time is highly subjective and something I project as a ''feeling of past and future'' on the world outside. None of which actually exist.

My previous two posts explain why I believe, you can't talk about gravity without talking about time, or more correctly without talking about time dilation.

It is necessary to understand time dilation in order to understand gravity.  Surely, if time did not exist, there could be no time dilation and therefore no such thing as gravity.  Gravity exists and so does time.

The dichotemy is much more complicated than that. If we were talking about time as being a local phenomenon, then yes this is true. If we are also talking time being experienced by Bradyons, or particles with mass, then time truely wasn't around until matter came out of the vacuum. But time for a universe, a universal global time vanishes. What is time then from the perspective of the universe if it does not exist globally? Is it only clocks moving below the speed of light that experience time, in which case the beginning of the universe certainly had no time and the end of the universe when all matter fields have returned to radiation fields, then the very future cone of our universe is also devoid of moving clocks.

Simply put, you can't have time without matter ... these moving relativistic clocks which tick off real time.

There is little in the above that I do not agree with but my standpoint has not changed.
I agree that prior to the existence of mass, there was no time.  [Others might not agree on that as photons are supposed to create gravity in which case mass would not be necessary for the existence of time.]  However, one could debate whether before ,time, distance , speed and geometry all became meaningful concepts did the universe exist or was it just the quantum vacuum void?

Once the Universe became recognizable as the Universe I see no problem as to why there should not be a global or universal time in as much that it would be arrived at by taking an average of all of the local times.  If time is the relationship between energy and mass in the universe and the percentage of these is constantly changing then the global or universal time dilation factor is also constantly changing.  As stars are constantly converting some of their mass into energy then mass is decreasing as energy increases.  So one could predict that time is contracting.  A second now is shorter than a second in the cosmological past.

Well, if a scientist said there must still be time when gravity is present, I'd say that is false. Keep in mind, before you agreed with the layout above, I said strictly that time and gravity were completely two different objects. Time is more to do with the freedom of objects, but not concerned specifically whether objects change or not.

So, the reason why gravity cannot define time in radiation fields is because gravity really is just a ''distortion'' - a field, which as far as we can tell is a psuedoforce, not requiring any physical mediator. There are many scientists who describe gravity as a psuedoforce. This maybe another reason to dictate that gravity is not truely fundamental. For radiation, they do not possess clocks which tick away time. We will also find that gravity only became significant after the radiation period when black holes could form, otherwise, the effects of these radiation fields would still have been significantly weak.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
So let's see if I can lay this out some more.

There is perhaps what we would call a ''fundamental time'' and a ''geometric time'' according to Markoupoulou. I add that fundamental time does not really exist, but a geometric time does for a late evolution of the universe. Here I add a new concept: ''induced time'', meaning time is really an emergent phenomenae late on the universes history which is why the universe is devoid of a fundamental time.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
So let's see if I can lay this out some more.

There is perhaps what we would call a ''fundamental time'' and a ''geometric time'' according to Markoupoulou. I add that fundamental time does not really exist, but a geometric time does for a late evolution of the universe. Here I add a new concept: ''induced time'', meaning time is really an emergent phenomenae late on the universes history which is why the universe is devoid of a fundamental time.

I would argue that time is not an emergent phenomena 'late in the universes history.

'Late' implies that there was an earlier period.  Without the backdrop of space-time there could have been no earlier period. 

Therefore, talking about what happened when and where before the creation of time is pretty meaningless. 

The history of the Universe can only date back to the creation of time.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
So let's see if I can lay this out some more.

There is perhaps what we would call a ''fundamental time'' and a ''geometric time'' according to Markoupoulou. I add that fundamental time does not really exist, but a geometric time does for a late evolution of the universe. Here I add a new concept: ''induced time'', meaning time is really an emergent phenomenae late on the universes history which is why the universe is devoid of a fundamental time.

I would argue that time is not an emergent phenomena 'late in the universes history.

'Late' implies that there was an earlier period.  Without the backdrop of space-time there could have been no earlier period. 

Therefore, talking about what happened when and where before the creation of time is pretty meaningless. 

The history of the Universe can only date back to the creation of time.

Late may imply there is an order. I may not be implying there could be time before matter - we may describe evolution in a different way. A purely static order before that order was broken, perhaps induced by a type of symmetry breaking.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile

Late may imply there is an order. I may not be implying there could be time before matter - we may describe evolution in a different way. A purely static order before that order was broken, perhaps induced by a type of symmetry breaking.

I can't agree with that.  Late and order imply causality.  Before the creation of time there was neither. 

Talking about before time is a minefield as we are limited by language.  I have just used the word 'before' which is meaningless without time.

I agree that something must have happened prior to the creation of matter but it happened outside of time and therefore outside the history of the Universe.

Initially, as I understand it all that existed was energy in the void.  Energy, travels instantaneously so any amount could appear here, there or anywhere at any time, if 'any amount', 'here', 'there', 'anywhere' and 'any time' were meaningful but they are not.  What it does demonstrate is that in the Universe entropy rules.  In the void without time there was no entropy.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile

Late may imply there is an order. I may not be implying there could be time before matter - we may describe evolution in a different way. A purely static order before that order was broken, perhaps induced by a type of symmetry breaking.

I can't agree with that.  Late and order imply causality.  Before the creation of time there was neither. 

Talking about before time is a minefield as we are limited by language.  I have just used the word 'before' which is meaningless without time.

I agree that something must have happened prior to the creation of matter but it happened outside of time and therefore outside the history of the Universe.

Initially, as I understand it all that existed was energy in the void.  Energy, travels instantaneously so any amount could appear here, there or anywhere at any time, if 'any amount', 'here', 'there', 'anywhere' and 'any time' were meaningful but they are not.  What it does demonstrate is that in the Universe entropy rules.  In the void without time there was no entropy.

You seem to be forgetting however, that I have no problem with change. Orders may imply a change. Change does not necesserily mean time however. Take Barbours approach as a prime example. He says there is no time, only change.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Ęthelwulf

Just because you keep quoting Barbours approach saying there is no time only change, does not make it true.  So far I haven't seen the slightest evidence that time does not exist whereas there is plenty of evidence that it does.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Ęthelwulf

Just because you keep quoting Barbours approach saying there is no time only change, does not make it true.  So far I haven't seen the slightest evidence that time does not exist whereas there is plenty of evidence that it does.

I don't just qoute Barbour, I gave you a perfect example of freezing an evolution of a system. If time really does exist, then systems don't need to change.

The zeno effect is a priori.
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Ęthelwulf

Just because you keep quoting Barbours approach saying there is no time only change, does not make it true.  So far I haven't seen the slightest evidence that time does not exist whereas there is plenty of evidence that it does.

Since my time here also, I have asked for evidence of time. I can give one main reason why systems do need to change over time.

Since my time here, no one has provided conrete evidence of time existing. You said the fact we can see galaxies in space is evidence of time, I said that was rubbish more or less. I need physical evidence. There is none. Age is reserved for those who relatively see age.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
I have given evidence why on a macoscopic scale the zeno effect is rubbish not real.

I have also given evidence that time is real.  Time is what clocks record.
Any type of clock and all types of clock will record the same going rate locally despite differences in construction, mechanism, operation etc.  Yet an identical set of clocks in a different gravitational potential will record a different going rate in comparison to the first group whilst still keeping in syncronisation with one another.

If they are not recording the passage of time, what are they recording and how do you account for it varying from one group to the next?

To help me to understand your viewpoint perhaps you would like to elaborate on " example of freezing an evolution of a system."
« Last Edit: 05/04/2012 14:04:47 by MikeS »
 

Offline Ęthelwulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
I have given evidence why on a macoscopic scale the zeno effect is rubbish not real.

Sure the zeno effect does not describe macroscopic systems, I agree with this.
So let's, as consulting adults (lol) help ourselves to the prevailing theory of large matter, and resort to GR.

Oops! A new problem arises... the world is actually timeless.

I hope you are not one of these people who think GR is wrong.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
I am a firm believer in GR but believe it may not be complete.
GR is about warped space-time so it is not timeless.
GR does not set out to prove or disprove the existence of time.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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