Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yahya on 12/01/2017 17:54:25

time is just mathematical artifact to compare natural actions and interactions , the "second" is just a " time" in which the clock hand complete one cycle by a constant angular speed , another clock can complete this one cycle in 4 seconds if it's slower.
and what is a day ? the time for the earth to complete one cycle around its axis.
we use a watch because its the simplest action happens ,which is the constant angular speed, you can see how an action is being used as a reference to describe other actions , time is just the artificial fourth dimension that is needed to make comparison between different actions, actions happen whether you compare between them or not , actions happen whether there is time or not , and we can compare without time , time can not go infinitely back to the past because simply actions did not happen infinitely in the past , time is just a mathematical artifact to compare between actions.
think of an object of speed 1 m/s , and another one with 2 m/s , how to compare them without using time ? kinetic energy can be a good tool , energy in general does not depend on time think of petrol contains a mount of energy does this energy have speed ? does time is involved here ? No , yet you can use this kinetic energy to compare between two objects having different constant velocities , and you can use one object with a standard velocity say 1 m/s call it V ( capital v) to compare every action in the universe without using time !!
we can extract time from kinetic energy , distance and mass , yet all these quantities do not depend on time ! that means time is just a mathematical artifact.
you can use V which is a standard speed equals 1 m/s , everything can be manipulated according to this measure unit without involving time , for example 5 m/s means 5V , instead of putting time (t) as an X axis we just put s / v, s is the distance has nothing to do with time , v is a velocity coming from kinetic energy , which all these have nothing to do with time : kinetic energy, mass and distance.
again time can't go back infinitely and it does not appear when there is nothing. that means it is all about the universe it is all about comparing between different physical phenomena
the constant speed can be a good tool for comparison , the earth complete one cycle around its axis , when my watch hand with specific constant angular velocity ( angular velocity comes from linear velocity with specific length for the watch hand )complete 24 cycles , of course this sounds complicated , and things won't be described like this but they can be described like this , and remember my standard unit which is the constant linear velocity comes from both energy and mass , v=sqr(2E/m), those are independent from time, E=mc2 for instance and mass has nothing to do with time whatsoever.

Yahya, your arguments are mathematically plausible.. But do they explain why people get older? With faces getting more wrinkled and lined. And bodies more shrivelled and weak as time goes on.
If time is just a "mathematical artifact", why aren't you still young?

Time is just a tool we use to have something to relate to, a system to syncronice movement, measuring movement relative to everything Time is a way to plan what come next. And about ageing. Its about decay, movement, change. and another thing: 5m/s . Second equals time!

time and space do not exist separately , think of 30 seconds being 0.5 minutes , yet we do not know exactly what is a minute and what is a second, one meter bar is only one meter when compared to another one meter but I can say it's one (anything) instead of meter, time and space exists as a combination , separating them is mathematical , this combination is constant speed , speed can be measured relative to speed of light ,i.e c , speed can be 0.5c , or 0.25c or maximum c , or 0, it does not matter its unit , but just the fraction before c, c is constant and a maximum value for speed, I know what c is and I can know what 0.5c is.and I was able to set constant speed as absolute unit , without resorting to both time an/or space.
There is also other rate of changes such as the rate of change of water leaks from a tank , these all can be measured using velocity , we think of water as something has volume for each mass quantity , density is constant at least in the same conditions , water leak can be measure by volume per second , volume per second can be measured in m/s or velocity.
Chemical reaction , how much matter will be made each second during chemical reaction , that is just mass per second or volume per second or meter per second.
Being sad for a minute , or being happy for an hour does not have actual rate of change time then is just abstract or perhaps absolutely relative concept I can't even feel time the way I feel sadness. of course being sad for " a long time " is bad but that because there is hidden chemical reactions inside.
If being old in age has rate of change some how , then it would be volume per second or m/s .
accelaration can be taken directly from force and mass both of them have nothing to do with time or space, a=F/m.

If s = speed then s = d/t. Although the variable d may be ambiguous in this instance. For events to be mapped over a change in spatial location time is a required parameter. For a speed we have a straight line trajectory in a flat spacetime. So we can restate the equation as s = x/t. Since both parameters can be mapped to the number line then they should be considered unbounded. Does this mean infinite in extent? That is debateable.

Yes there is the distance my train elapse and the time my flight takes , but these can be measured using a reference of constant speed , we can say the whole distance of a constant speed train equals 5 cycles of my classic watch " five hours" if the train speed is constant, then it will elapse half the distance in 2.5 cycles of my watch , there is a difference between angles ( or cycles) and length , length is absolute but angles are not , one cycle is the same everywhere in space and equals 360 degrees everywhere.

In SR speed is constant. In GR a = ds/dt so that again you cannot remove time. In Newtonian terms F = ma. Even kinetic energy requires time to define it. Rest energy does not.
Edit: Since F has an implicit change in position within its definition then this must require a rate of change in time if we agree with time dilation.

The units of gravitational potential are J kg^{1} where energy in Joules also has an implicit time component. For equations of motion time is also implicit in the action. It is everywhere. To remove it would be counter productive.

In Newtonian terms F = ma. Even kinetic energy requires time to define it. Rest energy does not.
rest energy and kinetic energy are equivelence and do the same purpose, kinetic energy can be used as rest energy and vice versa, a moving object just has energy that can be heat or any kind of energy. electric charge caused by rubbing (motion) is an example andthe same unit for both energies
Edit: Since F has an implicit change in position within its definition then this must require a rate of change in time if we agree with time dilation.
force can exist on objects on earth surface (gravity) without they move , if force does not exist things will fly to space.

The units of gravitational potential are J kg^{1} where energy in Joules also has an implicit time component. For equations of motion time is also implicit in the action. It is everywhere. To remove it would be counter productive.
I think I just need sometime to manipulate everything without time, but I am sure time can be eliminated, although it sounds crazy " I need some time" "to eliminate time"

Well there is the problem of time between QM and GR so you may find something useful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time)

One thing I have been considering is a coordinate value for the Planck constant that can be tied to the dynamics of spacetime. Would this allow the elimination of time from quantum mechanics?

One other requirement would be to extend relativistic quantum mechanics from the domain of special relativity into the domain of general relativity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_mechanics)

First you have to understand where SR and GR comes from in a relativistic sense. SR of course is vector speed geometry due to angle of view and distance. Gr on the other hand is more to do with zero point energy. If you can understand space time as c the equivalence is dilation of energy points being the increase in length due to geometry angles. The equivalence is tick rate in clocks. So the expansion of zero point energy affects distance for a clock between ticks has increased by physical dilation rather than angle distance in SR. Quantum mechanics is spacetime

suppose we have a new unit for angular speed and that is w , this unit may be 1 radian/ sec or 1 rev/sec or anything , now lets have a clock that has angular velocity of w , suppose we have another clock of 5w angular speed , and it means it has 5 times the speed of the original one , we can measure the speed of it by comparing between the two , if we start two events at the same moment the first will complete one cycle or 2pi radians , at the same moment the second one completes 5 cycles , the measurement could be more precise by using degrees minutes and seconds for angle measurements, motion is events and time is just comparison between these events, regarding the order of the occurrence of these events, "time" or the beforeafter measurement has no meaning if these events did not occur from the beginning .
time dilation is combined with length contraction to keep the constant amount of uniform speed , in fact we have illusion of time dilation and length contraction , because time does not exist what exists is a combination of the two represented by speed of light c. the thing which exists is length that can be compared to other length .
a vector can be represented as follows :
we can take the vector and draw a circle its tail is in the center and its head is at the circumference and let it rotate by angular speed w , and calculate its linear velocity at its head to be 0.0004c or 0.1c or anything respect to c speed of light .
c=rw , that means for a specific angular velocity there is a maximum radius r since if the radius increases more than its maximum amount it will have to rotate with more than c (linear velocity), the radius r has a particular length and we can set the unit of length to be w , which is just constant speed.
we can set the standard w by : w=c/r and make the length r for instance c length, it means we divide r into w units to reach c times i.e c*1, the head of the vector will rotate by maximum c , that will make angular speed =1w or the standard unit.the length of r equals c and the standard unit w is when c=r, c=cw , or w=1
time is just a measurement between two events supposing there are infinite amount of other events occur in between these two events, uniform motion in SR is a reference frame , and we do not need time nor space just uniform motion. and for time we can just set up a sequence of events one happen after the other and the number of these events are seconds and minutes.

One thing I have been considering is a coordinate value for the Planck constant that can be tied to the dynamics of spacetime. Would this allow the elimination of time from quantum mechanics?
the coordinate (x,y.z.t ) does not exist , think of reference coordinate as origin it can be anywhere, making the coordinates absolute , a point is a point it only has length from another point, and replacing every ds/dt by constant v and dv/dt by a will be valid anywhere. considering that both v and a coming from physical quantities are not vrelated to time.
time is just an infinite number of supposed events supposed to occur in a clock . these events happen in a uniform sequence of actions. we suppose for a moving car to have infinite of events happen one after the other, the thing which make time fails is numbers, absolute numbers can be assigned to time it has a meaning only in comparison with another sequence of actions v.

Time is bound up tightly with causality and cannot simply be wished away. If I smash a plate by shooting it with a gun and the fragments fly apart such that they smash other plates around them, and fragments of those then spread out and injure people standing further away, there's a clear direction of causation which must match up with the order in which the events occur. If you try to start from the future end of time and run through events towards the past, you build up a sequence of unlikely events where you start with fragments of plates embedded in damaged people which miraculously have energy applied to them in ways that lead to them all flying out to collide with each other and turn into perfect, complete plates (by magic  how come they all fit so neatly when they've never been plates before and weren't designed to fit) while the people's wounds are healed in an instant, and then in the way these plates are hurled together propels other fragments which haven't yet turned into a plate to make an aditional plate which by luck restores a flattened bullet into a perfect one and then pushes it at enormous speed directly towards the barrel of a gun which it then moves through while being slowed by contracting gases which convert themselves into gunpowder in a cartridge. The improbabilities of all these events involve ridiculously large numbers multiplied by ridiculously large numbers over and over again, all of which leads to the only sane conclusion that the universe doesn't run in that time direction, but the opposite one which causes no such problems.
This is important, because if you want to think about how Spacetime must work, there are a few different options, but most are not viable. One model has everything and everywhen existing as an eternal block in which past and future simply exist together and the future is not generated out of the past, but is already there and complete without having been created through any process where causation determines the shape of the future from the form of the past. Such a block universe is a magical idea which cannot be correct in reality because as soon as you've lost the role of causality, you're left with mere coincidence to determine the shape of the future, the past being banned from having any role in shaping it. This kind of universe is not as improbable as the one being generated backwards in time, but it still involves ridiculous coincidences in the form of the future appearing to be generated from the form of the past while not having been generated from that at all. It is not sane to regard such a model as viable  belief in fairies is inordinately more rational.
Realistic models all have to grow the block from past to future, or else they can simply run from past to future without building a block at all (with time then being Newtonian in nature). Once you understand the importance of causality in determining the way the future is shaped out of the past, you are forced to accept that just as causality has to run through a sequence of events, time must run through those events with it. Time and causality are tightly bound and you simply cannot run causality without running time.
Once you understand this constraint upon the nature of time, you are then better placed to see why so many of the claims people make about time are not viable. Time is not a mere dimension.

You were away a long time Mr Cooper. Welcome back.

Hey David  nice to see you back, you are as always a pleasure to read...
...and yes agreed, time is not just a dimension but an intrinsic phenomenon of cause and effect where the local rate of the phenomenon of time is deterministic of ones perception of distance and motion both locally and nonlocally.

Thanks, Jeffrey and Timey  good to see that you're still active here.
An email from the forum suggested I might be removed from the database if I didn't visit in a hurry, so I thought I'd better put in an appear before I'm excommunicated. The new forum software seems to be a big improvement  it doesn't freeze my machine every five seconds and it no longer takes an hour to post anything, so I might be able to look in more often from now on.

Time is just a measurement of reaction rates relative to other reaction rates It is fundamental motion c that regulate the reaction rate in a frame. A clock measures the available energy c minus the kinetic energy used from c. c energy is not able to be viewed directly because we would need something faster than c to measure directly. We only can measure indirectly with the speed of light. Energy is only a dimension of size very small.

From the archive:
What is time?
The operational definition of assigning a time to an event as mentioned by A.E. in the 1905 paper is essentially what it is, and how it's been done since humans appeared.
It is a correspondence convention, i.e., assigning events of interest to standard clock events, a measure and ordering of activity, with 'time' always increasing/accumulating.
It is an accounting scheme developed out of practical necessity, for human activities like agriculture, business, travel, science, etc. The unit of measure for time initially referred to relative positions of astronomical objects, stars, sun, and moon, which implies earth rotations and earth orbits. The year equates to the periodic motion of the earth relative to the sun, the month, the moon relative to the earth, and the day, the earth rotation relative to the stars. All units of time are by definition, involving spatial motion or distance. The clock further divides the day into smaller units of measure. The reference in the 1905 paper of the watch hand to a position on the watch face involves nothing more than counting hand cycles (hand motion of specific distances representing subdivisions of a day). Current scientific research requires clocks that generate smaller and more precise periods than those of the past. The second is defined as n wave lengths of a specific frequency of light. Note "n wave lengths" is a distance, but labeled as "time".
If we use a light based clock to time the speed of an object along a known distance x, what are we actually doing?
We are comparing the simultaneous motion of an object to the motion of light for a duration (number of ticks). The result is a ratio x/s = vt/ct = v/c or speed. It should be obvious that the ticks serve to correlate the positions of the object with the positions of the light signal, for simultaneous comparisons. If you use Minkowski spacetime diagrams the vertical scale is not 'time', but ct, light path distance, i.e. they plot speed. You 're comparing apples to apples.
In summation: A clock provides a beat or rhythm to coordinate events.
The clock used in music is a metronome. Whether it ticks fast or slow, the same amount of music is played.
quotes by the author of SR
From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analyzed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an Itime, or subjective time."
page 31.
"The nondivisibility of the fourdimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."
page 32.
"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time coordinate l=ct, the imaginary time coordinate..."
time and perception
Subjective time requires memory, which allows a comparison of a current state to a previous state for any changes, which lends itself to an interpretation of time flowing. Patients with brain damage to specific areas involved in maintaining a personal chronology, lose their ability to estimate elapsed time, short or long term. Consider the fact that people waking from a comatose state, have no memory of how much elapsed time, whether hrs, days, or even years.
Consider one of the greatest misnomers ever used, 'motion pictures' or 'movies', where a person observes a sequence of still photos and the mind melds them to produce moving objects where there is no motion. These cases show time as part of perception. SR then alters perception via motion.
misc.
It was Minkowski who advocated the mathematical manipulation of the expression for the invariant interval from an equality to a generalized form of four variables, producing spacetime.
Mathematical descriptions that express a behavior as a function of time, are misleading when the time is interpreted as a causative factor. The time of an event must be assigned after the event occurs!
No objective or universal 'time' has yet been discovered, thus it remains subjective and variable with observer motion per SR. It is a measure of activity, and that's what science does, it measures things.
It's intangible, so we will never have "time in a bottle".
To Yahya; the spacetime diagram or similar graphic, using (x, ct) axes is based on the standard c. Light speed is accepted as an upper limit and as universal. No need to reinvent it.

Clocks measure c energy  kinetic energy. Universal time is c distance but we can never properly measure the amount of kinetic energy being used in a frame.

Clocks measure c energy  kinetic energy. Universal time is c distance but we can never properly measure the amount of kinetic energy being used in a frame.
I'll agree with you in part; energy can be calculated from the time, but that's not the design purpose of a clock, no more than a ruler measures momentum, but can supply distance data for that purpose.

Yes, it is all interconnected and relative. c is the total available energy E while mass is the kinetic energy being used from c. Just like a ruler a clock is just a measurement. .Momentum is a result from measurements. A clock measures distance for an interval. It can be an electron (mechanical) or a photon but they both measure the same EKinetic e of a frame. In GR its dilation of energy c for a less dense energy per volume of space. In SR its c volume of space traversed. This increases the kinetic portion of energy to c where it becomes all kinetic and no clock measurement for electron cycle or photon cycle between mirrors.

Is time just a mathematical artefact?
In my opinion, time, in physics, is just a mathematical artifact,
because :
 it is experimentally undetectable ;
 it cannot be neither continuous, nor discrete.
see: Fqxi.org/data/essaycontestfiles/Schlafly_fqxischlaflynomath_1.pdf
According to Einstein's GTR, time does not pass, nor flow ;
time in GTR is just the 4th dimention of stationary space.
So, why do we have this experinece of time passing
along with its consequences, like aging?
Because the passage of time is intimately related to mind (consciousness) :
theepochtimes.com/n3/eetcontent/uploads/2015/08/13/RogerPenroseQuote2.jpg
qph.ec.quoracdn.net/mainqimg07078d9416808bd563321385852b7985c
izquotes.com/quotespictures/quoteiregardconsciousnessasfundamentaliregardmatterasderivativefromconsciousnesswecannotmaxplanck259516.jpg
techstory.in/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/maxplanck9.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/AujtXwAH1zA/V2rHa1JcWCI/AAAAAAAAOHg/FfgUokENwYPBxBdhCJyY8nbcn0022LtQCLcB/s640/max_planck.jpg

So, why do we have this experinece of time passing
along with its consequences, like aging?
Because the passage of time is intimately related to mind (consciousness) : [/size]
I (in my opinion ) totally agree with this point , time is just a feeling, I noticed that a constant speed of something exists inside our minds , we interpret constant speed and distance elapsed as time, as I said before constant speed can just be compared with c , the thing we interpret as time is the distance traveled inside our minds, our minds can't measure distance inside them, they just interpret it as time, if I am not delusional , when I measure time in my mind I feel something moving with a constant speed and spending more something if it took much time and less something if took little time , this something is in fact distance but my mind interpret it as time, does anyone feel this when trying measuring time and comparing between long periods and short periods?

think of a clock of constant speed V and it elapses distance of S , then time is just : T=S/V
this equation : v=ds/dt , we can substitute dt=dS/V, the full equation will be:
v=ds/dt=V(ds/dS) or v=C(ds/dS) because the speed of the clock (V) is constant everywhere . the capital S is the distance traveled by the clock, which can be equivalent to time in any equation on earth.

notice : in the above equation , speed= length/length , which should not have unit , exactly! as I defined speed to be xc, v=xc , x is just a number , and c is also a number that is speed of light. speed does not have a unit it is related to c.