The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is time linear?  (Read 5976 times)

Offline Robcat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Is time linear?
« on: 09/09/2015 18:26:27 »
What scientific proof is there to demonstrate time is linear?
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 08:14:56 by chris »


 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: The arrow of time?
« Reply #1 on: 10/09/2015 22:09:49 »
How would you know if it wasn't?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #2 on: 11/09/2015 10:42:52 »
Quote from: Robcat
What scientific proof is there to demonstrate time is linear?
Just think about what it means for time to be linear. It means that it takes the same amount of time to repeat an identical experiment at any point in time.

Example: Consider a clock sitting on your night stand. When the second hand reads 0 drop something from a certain height. Record what the clock reads when the object hits the floor. Now repeat the experiment. If it takes the same amount of time given that everything else is equal then time is linear. Almost all experiments rely on this fact so yes. There's plenty of scientific evidence that time is linear.

Is there scientific proof that time is linear? No. Science is not about proving anything. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 10:51:59 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4090
  • Thanked: 242 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #3 on: 11/09/2015 11:36:39 »
Some of Zeno's paradoxes (eg Achilles and the Tortoise) play with the minds of people who think time is linear. This one requires that an infinite number of steps take place before Achilles can overtake the Tortoise, which to Zeno (and many people today) seems impossible.

The Arrow Paradox plays with the minds of those who think that time might be linear, but quantized. At this point in time, we have no generally agreed theory of quantum time (or quantum gravity).
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #4 on: 11/09/2015 11:41:58 »
It depends whose clock you're using. If you use a co-moving clock (one you carry with you), you'll find time by that clock is linear. If you use a clock that isn't moving with you (i.e. one you're moving relative to), you'll find that time by that clock will not be linear if your speed varies with respect to it.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #5 on: 11/09/2015 16:31:35 »
Quote from: dlorde
It depends whose clock you're using.
It most certainly does not matter. E.g. Suppose we put a stopwatch on the object that is dropped and when the object hits the floor the stopwatch reads T. Now repeat the experiment setting the stopwatch back to zero each time. Each time you'll find that the stopwatch will read the same value of T each and every time. 

Quote from: dlorde
If you use a co-moving clock (one you carry with you), you'll find time by that clock is linear. If you use a clock that isn't moving with you (i.e. one you're moving relative to), you'll find that time by that clock will not be linear if your speed varies with respect to it.
First of all we're talking about linear time, not linear clocks. For more on what a "good" clock is see: http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm

However it makes no difference which clock you use. When you repeat an experiment in classical physics it will always do the same exact thing (we're not talking about stochastic systems here by the way).
 

Offline Robcat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #6 on: 12/09/2015 21:05:05 »
so light passing thru a strong gravitational field bends a la relativity. As was said, you dont know if the universe pulses larger and smaller in milliseconds or years, because you cant see it  or test it.   
It surely all depends on the observer and as quantum physics is know showing us, it is the attempt to view that changes everything.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #7 on: 12/09/2015 22:04:48 »
Quote from: Robcat
As was said, you dont know if the universe pulses larger and smaller in milliseconds or years, because you cant see it  or test it.  Where was this stated?

Quote from: Robcat
It surely all depends on the observer,
I don't understand. What is the "it" that you were talking about in that sentence?

 and as quantum physics is know showing us, it is the attempt to view that changes everything.
What do I do with something like this?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #8 on: 13/09/2015 10:29:21 »
Linear with respect to what?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #9 on: 14/09/2015 09:45:02 »
Hmmm , time is not any dimension , in a zero point space time still moves forward, time is also isotropic in any direction. There are as many linear lines as you require in space.

t=V=[4/3πr3]/dx=equal
« Last Edit: 14/09/2015 12:13:05 by Thebox »
 

Offline Robcat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #10 on: 15/09/2015 16:02:22 »
It is the universe, you asked
However, I am allowed to question ,  as is anyone.

Space has three dimensions, yes ,   So I simply query if time has also three dimensions . We know it has past and future as a linear arrow of time, but I question mentally what would be the other 90 degree effects be.
As I said, questioning is part of life. It's so easy to dismiss or say silly! Imagineering used to be the term...trains, lifts, used to imagine and question.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #11 on: 18/09/2015 10:59:16 »
It is the universe, you asked
However, I am allowed to question ,  as is anyone.

Space has three dimensions, yes ,   So I simply query if time has also three dimensions . We know it has past and future as a linear arrow of time, but I question mentally what would be the other 90 degree effects be.
As I said, questioning is part of life. It's so easy to dismiss or say silly! Imagineering used to be the term...trains, lifts, used to imagine and question.

Well technically Rob , space has no dimensions, only matter has dimensions, XYZ are virtual vectors we use to help us navigate space and access space.   
If you are asking is X=Y and Y=Z , then yes, both Y and Z are also X but named differently to allow direction. It would be pretty useless if XYZ all pointed the same way like the representation of time, a vector linearity , a linearity because it applies to all vectors of XYZ, because XYZ is equal .
In saying that, ''time'' is not of material values and only exists for use of measuring, it is in a sense ''not real'', but at the same time real in the sense of ''time'' exists in matter.  Matter has a period of ''time'' existing in ''space-time'', we are not really measuring time moving forward, we are in a sense counting down a period of decay.
Let's say we live on average for 88 years, we are counting 0 to 88 years, but at the same time we are counting 88 years to 0.

An existence period already pre-set by the nature of quantum Physics before we decay. (we only live until we are 21, then we start dying).

p.s this is from a metaphysics view



« Last Edit: 18/09/2015 11:09:03 by Thebox »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #12 on: 19/09/2015 09:29:29 »
Quote from: Thebox
Well technically Rob , space has no dimensions, only matter has dimensions, XYZ are virtual vectors we use to help us navigate space and access space.   
That's incorrect. Space most definitely has dimensions. And spacetime has four dimensions. This is what you get when you keep refusing to start to read a good physics text and learn physics the correct way.

By definition, the dimension of a space is the smallest number required to uniquely denote a point in the space. Wiki defines it almost identical to how I just did, i.e. it says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
Quote
In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.

To uniquely denote a point in spacetime it takes 4 numbers. Spacetime is the collection of all events so it takes three numbers to determine where the event is in physical space and one number to determine the time of the event.

Quote from: Thebox
In saying that, ''time'' is not of material values and only exists for use of measuring, it is in a sense ''not real'', but at the same time real in the sense of ''time'' exists in matter.
People spend way to much time thinking about whether time is "real" or not when it really doesn't matter. Time denotes something real and that's what really counts.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #13 on: 19/09/2015 09:31:37 »
Quote from: Robcat
Space has three dimensions, yes ,   So I simply query if time has also three dimensions .
No. Time has only one dimension. That means that I can say when an event occurred at a location in space by specifying the time of the event with one number, e.g. 3:00pm.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #14 on: 19/09/2015 11:04:45 »
 
That's incorrect. Space most definitely has dimensions. And spacetime has four dimensions. This is what you get when you keep refusing to start to read a good physics text and learn physics the correct way.

No Pete you are incorrect and misusing XYZ ,   XYZ are virtual vectors/dimensions of space, dimensions of matter occupy dimensionless space, Einstein created XYZ to map space, virtual lines Pete, there is nothing real about virtual, you are suggesting space has body, cubes occupying all of space, you can say space has a distance, space has a volume, but the shape of space is not known, therefore space has no dimension, this is why Einstein created xyz.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #15 on: 19/09/2015 11:08:35 »
Quote from: Robcat
Space has three dimensions, yes ,   So I simply query if time has also three dimensions .
No. Time has only one dimension. That means that I can say when an event occurred at a location in space by specifying the time of the event with one number, e.g. 3:00pm.

Time is not real Pete, it is not of substance, therefore time has no dimension.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #16 on: 19/09/2015 11:52:03 »
Quote from: Thebox

Time is not real Pete, it is not of substance, therefore time has no dimension.
Well, first of all I didn't say whether it was or wasn't "real." What I said was that "Time denotes something real and that's what really counts." Second, something doesn't have to have substance to have dimension. The most common use of the term "dimension" is found in linear algebra where it refers to a property of vector spaces, i.e. the number of linearly independent basis vectors is said to be the dimension of the vector space.

You can't correctly argue something by merely stating what you believe is true like you did here. In this case you substituted what you believe something is meant to be "real" as the definition of the term real. That's not a valid approach to arguing. A thing is not "real" based solely on whether or not it's made of matter.

Look at the definition of "real" as a starting point at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

At this point all I'm going to say is that it's a complete waste of my time to bother discussing what it means to be real or not so I'm stopping right here. And that means that if, more likely when, you post something that I disagree with I won't respond to it since that's the way endless arguments keep going and this is not worth my time.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #17 on: 19/09/2015 12:13:16 »
Quote from: Thebox


Well, first of all I didn't say whether it was or wasn't "real." What I said was that "Time denotes something real and that's what really counts." Second, something doesn't have to have substance to have dimension. The most common use of the term "dimension" is found in linear algebra where it refers to a property of vector spaces, i.e. the number of linearly independent basis vectors is said to be the dimension of the vector space.

You can't correctly argue something by merely stating what you believe is true like you did here. In this case you substituted what you believe something is meant to be "real" as the definition of the term real. That's not a valid approach to arguing. A thing is not "real" based solely on whether or not it's made of matter.

Look at the definition of "real" as a starting point at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

At this point all I'm going to say is that it's a complete waste of my time to bother discussing what it means to be real or not so I'm stopping right here. And that means that if, more likely when, you post something that I disagree with I won't respond to it since that's the way endless arguments keep going and this is not worth my time.

I could quite easily engage in a discussion with you Pete when you talk like this, (honest talk).


''the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.''

Things that actually exist are things we can observe Pete, rather than unrealistically aiming for perfection and inventing things,

''Well, first of all I didn't say whether it was or wasn't "real." What I said was that "Time denotes something real and that's what really counts.''

Time does not denote something that is real, time is an invention by ourselves to denote an increment of our very own existence, then it was used to denote spacial distances, speed and all that is science.

The fundamentals of ''time'' is that equal to motion of the Sun, a distance travelled, science presently has time equal to a distance, based on the earths spin relative to the motion of the sun. Science has time synchronised to the Earth's spin, science has the whole Universe synchronised on the Earth's spin.
 
I have never argued it does not work Pete, I know we need this, I know we need time or we would develop chaos.

In all honestly Pete you know we can observe matter, we can observe ''empty space'' , but we do not observe ''time'' . we make the time that exists, if we removed time it would have no effect on the universe, the universe would continue to do its thing.

I only ask you stop defending things that are virtual Pete in a sense of materialising them, time in a virtual sense yes, xyz in a virtual sense yes, this is science.
 Things need to be clearly defined, you did not write these definitions, I could write them better than that.

There is two type of dimensions, one being the dimension of matter, (what we call a shape), the second being a virtual dimension of space.

There is two types of time, one being that of  decay of matter(real time), the second being a virtual time of space (that what we call space-time).


« Last Edit: 19/09/2015 12:51:42 by Thebox »
 

Offline Robcat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #18 on: 27/09/2015 18:31:38 »
One reason for ever proposing time has three dimensions apart from the present arrow of time from past to future with now at its centre is
that superposition and a host of quantum features, appear to need the three dimension structure.

superpostion, wormholes etc could benefit from such a concept..... how..... i dont know??
thats over to you bright folk!
 

Offline octavian_balaci

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #19 on: 29/09/2015 18:25:50 »
time is an imaginary thing, so one can define it anyway he/she want. Of course is more simple to define it linear.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #20 on: 15/11/2015 17:50:28 »
No Pete you are incorrect and misusing XYZ ,   XYZ are virtual vectors/dimensions of space, dimensions of matter occupy dimensionless space, Einstein created XYZ to map space, virtual lines Pete, there is nothing real about virtual, you are suggesting space has body, cubes occupying all of space, you can say space has a distance, space has a volume, but the shape of space is not known, therefore space has no dimension, this is why Einstein created xyz.
I see what you are getting at, but I also disagree with that to some degree as of recently. Brian Greene suggested in one or more of his books (I'm paraphrasing and extrapolating a bit here) that it is pointless to suggest there is some unit of space smaller than a "Planck volume," or whatever size the smallest string or particle turns out to be. In order for there to be an oscillation, there needs to be a finite amount of space for that vibration to occur in. The smallest particle or vibration would be the smallest amount of space possible. In fact, you can't use a particle smaller than the smallest particle to probe the smallest particle. It IS the smallest particle. The concept of anything smaller than the smallest is nonsense, so a unit of space smaller than that might very well be meaningless.

I don't believe it has been necessarily proven which of these two scenarios is the case: 1) that a particle has a continuous motion from "Planck space A" to "Planck space B," or 2) it makes a discrete "quantum leap" from occupying space A to occupying space B when it is in motion through Planck space.

Of course, the very idea of spacetime is that things follow "geodesics," which could very well be used to divide space up into little warped, distorted "Planck cubes" where particle interactions can occur, and that could very well turn out to be a meaningful description.

In fact, I think a particle might very well "have some say" in what form space takes. Maybe the wave function of a particle determines what length, width and height those cubes are when it makes a series of quantum leaps while traversing space along a geodesic.

There you go. Don't say I didn't do anything for science.
« Last Edit: 15/11/2015 19:43:47 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is time linear?
« Reply #20 on: 15/11/2015 17:50:28 »

 

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