Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Robcat on 28/11/2015 18:58:31
-
When you look at an object that is not at your point in reality it is separated by time.
As you can not be at the distant apparent point, you can think you are separated by a thing called Space.
But why is it not just separated by time.
It bends the mind to abandon space, and consider reality is only a time separation .
It certainly helps in quantum physics but you need to change even the definition of all entities inc... The speed of light
As that includes the space dimension.
It's so radical and mind bending that I await the torrent of heretic abuse
We are indoctrinated from birth with space and the concept of time, but until you can be in two,places at the same reality, the arguement can rage.
-
An interesting observation, that sort of demonstrates what you are saying, can be found in photography. This affect is call motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the shutter speed of the camera is slower than the action speed. Since time is stopped in the photo, the difference in speed (Δd/Δt) appears as uncertainty in distance; blur. In the top photo below, one gets the impression of motion even with time stopped in the photo. The brain is interpreting the uncertainty in distance as connected to time to get motion. My theory is time and distance are interchangeable at some level.
We live in a quantum universe, where there are gaps between quanta. Theoretically, motion blur could happen in the gaps where time becomes discontinuous, allowing space-time to appear. The analogy for this is connected to motion pictures of movies. In movies, each frame is like a quantum step, with a loss of time between frames. Each frame is also a still picture that can contain its own motion blur. If the motion blur in each frame is fuzzy enough to overlap the gap in time between frame, the movie (space-time) looks continuous.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F9bytz.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2FMotion-Blur-Photography-10.jpg&hash=22c1229eaf2a2993e52cc7482aeffa5e)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftwistedphysics.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c9c1053ef01347fc7fbdf970c-pi&hash=e55fa1d0808f58c5e27b919f9bb562e5)
-
Space and time are definitely closely related (and in some respects essentially interchangeable), but the models we have that rely on 4 dimensions (call them what you like) are so generally in agreement with what we observe and measure, that I don't think you could come up with a better description of reality having fewer than 4-dimensions.
If you want to argue that there are 4 temporal dimensions, you will have to convince me that your new basis set is better to suited for describing the universe than what we use now (even a single example of a case where your version is easier could be valuable)
-
Space and time are mental constructs. Space is the empty nothing between stuff, while time is not a thing we can save in a bottle. Space-time is composed of two non-things in terms of tangible reality. These are reference variables. One analogy is, space-time is like the projected grid on a pilot's windshield. When space-time bends nothing tangible actually bends, only the grid bends. However, as you use this grid system more and more, the grid begins to merge with reality until both appear as one. This is when the pilot can use the windshield grid like second nature. This mental merger is how two not-things starts to appear like two things.
We use cartesian coordinates (x,y,z,t), most commonly to express space-time (grid). However, since GR is more accurate over a wide range of perception, and it causes space-time to curve or bend, wouldn't polar coordinates (r, Φ, δ, t) be more useful since it blends with GR with such ease. The problem would be many will look for special meaning for the two angles (Φ, δ), as though physical things; after the mental merger of the grid and reality.
I like the idea of time-space, which can to be used in conjunction with space-time. Just as space has three dimensions in space-time, with time-space, time has three dimensions. For example 0-D time is a point in time-space. 1-D time is a line in time-space geometry. This allows one to represent all things with a single time dimension, like velocity d/t and clock time. 2-D time represents a time plane in time-space, with two units of time. This is acceleration and has a connection to all the forces; d/t/t. While 3-D time has three units of time and is an acceleration of an acceleration; d/t/t/t. The universe is an accelerating expansion of materials under the impact of the force of gravity.
Space-time tells us when and where, while time-space adds time based physical parameters (found in equations) that complement position, such as velocity, forces, accelerations and acceleration of the accelerations. The composite could be called space3-time 3 or (x,y,z,t1,t2,t3).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avionicslcd.com%2FHUD%2FHUD%2520M1.jpg&hash=32f6bc9f247ed2c8ac8add12eefd6487)
-
How far is it to Mars
It depends how fast you go!
But fast is space times time.
So how far is it to Mars? Approx 250 seconds
No more no less.
-
Space and time are related through relativity theories .SApacetime continuum is inseparablehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
-
The space(gap,distance) is physical therefore must be covered physically. Time is a reference for the distance to be covered
-
You can not seperate space from time. You can not have an animated Universe if you had no way to describe movement. All movement is described as space over time.
Time is a definition of the process of moving through space, and space is defined by the passage of time.
To try and disassociate the two would be to destroy the Universe.
I do like "Timespace" though, rather than "Spacetime". It sounds better.
As for the speculation on the minimum number of dimensions we can exist in?
How about two. One of time and one of space.
The time dimension defined by a one direction variable amplitude arrow.
The space Dimension defined by three right angled unbounded length cartesian coordinate lines.
Just speculations..
-
Here is an interesting observation about time and how we measure time, that came to me the other day. If you look at the flow of time, time spontaneously moves toward the future. We cannot go back into time, except in science fiction. I can't go back into time and become a teenager again. I can only look forward to the future. The flow of time is unidirectional to the future and does not spontaneously reverse itself.
Based on this observation, what are clocks actually simulating, since clocks work in cycles. Each day my clock allows me to return to midnight which is not how time flows. Although we measure time we do so in a way that is not based on the flow of time.
One type of clock with a more accurate representation of the flow of time, would be an entropy clock. Entropy, like time, is also unidirectional and according to the second law will increase over time. Entropy moves to the future, like time and does not spontaneously return to the past. As an example of an entropy clock, consider the fish clock. With this entropy clock we take a fresh fish, of a certain weight, and place it on the counter top, at 70F. When we can smell the dead fish at 25 feet, this is a unit of time. We cannot un-stink the fish and therefore this clock not only measures time, but is consistent with the flow of time.
With the fish clock if we lower the temperature of the room, we can slow the flow of time. With the fish clock temperature works similar to relativity. If we freeze the fish, it will not stink for months; time dilation. The fish still moves to the future and does not cycle back, while slowing down.
So the question becomes, what are we actually measuring with clocks, since time does not move in cycles like clocks, but rather time is more consistent with the unidirectional nature of entropy and the fish clock?
One way to answer this question is to look at the sand dial. A sand dial measures time based on the flow of sand from an upper to lower chamber; hour glass. The sand dial is a type of entropy clock, since each time we flip the sand dial, all the thousands of grains of sand will never be in the exact place, again; time via entropy.
The sand dial has the practical disadvantage of needing to be flipped, each hour, to measure extended periods of time. Therefore to get a continuous measurement of time, with a sand dial, we need to add energy; flipping, for each cycle. Based on this, all clocks are time plus energy with the energy used to add the cycling of time, which is not how time flows.
If we had a science fiction time machine, we would need to add energy to the machine; flux capacitor, to go back into time. To alter the flow of of time away from unidirectional into a cycle we need to add energy. So when GR and SR slow time, according to clocks, it is not just slowing time but it is also doing something to the energy we added to time to make time cycle. GR and SR contain potential energy; mass and kinetic energy, with this energy impacting the energy added to make time cycle.
-
I love this question and discussion. Must re-read to better comprehend. I have thought of time as a construct of man to actually explain motion...the forward movement of light and the continued remaking of matter (from some molecular construct, broken, reassembled to something new.) Sort of like if the universe is expanding, our point of occupation is the cusp of the expansion, and we ride it until our carbon structure wears out and gets re-assembled ("when" we die.) I also believe our soul/spirit is energy based, and when our carbon structure (body), gives out, our spirits continue outside of the carbon-based plane of molecular and gaseous (sun/stars) motion (our current reality/existence) and continues on in light. God is Light. I don't fully understand the physics of it, and it is just a thought, but interesting to contemplate. Every living think has to have motion, subparticle nuclear motion in its atoms, or it is no longer alive, the structure collapses if the motion ceases. Most of our carbon structures depend on light energy for life. No light, no motion, no structure, no time. No?