What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

  • 245 Replies
  • 62061 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #100 on: 31/01/2011 18:37:54 »
QC,

So how do you define the speed of light if there is no such ting as time? Come to that, how do you define any speed without using time?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #101 on: 31/01/2011 18:47:19 »
QC,

So how do you define the speed of light if there is no such ting as time? Come to that, how do you define any speed without using time?

As I said, for all practical purposes, time is a very useful man-made device. It helps us with our equations, how to catalogue our events. I never said it was never used. General Relativity paints a different picture to the world we have become akin to. It is different to the world we set our equations to, where time was invariant within the equations of motion, and the passing of events.

You'll just have to learn to understand, two worlds exist right now. Both are contradictory, and the only machines stuck in the middle trying to comprehend the two are ourselves.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #102 on: 31/01/2011 18:48:34 »
Your heartbeats are no illusion QC :)

And they will produce the same amount no matter what you do. Assuming, for example, one million heartbeats to one life. then that is the 'duration' taken under all circumstances, traveling near light, being on Earth, or at a neutron star, assuming that one could survive such of course:)

That's what relativity says about 'durations' and 'times arrow'.

That, your own 'room time geometry', aka Frame of reference always will present you with the same durations. So no, it's not an illusion to me, but neither is a 'quanta', or a 'flow'. To me they all seem to come with how you define what you look at, and from where you look.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #103 on: 31/01/2011 18:50:26 »
Your heartbeats are no illusion QC :)

And they will produce the same amount no matter what you do. Assuming, for example, one million heartbeats to one life. then that is the 'duration' taken under all circumstances, traveling near light, being on Earth, or at a neutron star, assuming that one could survive such of course:)

That's what relativity says about 'durations' and 'times arrow'.

That, your own 'room time geometry', aka Frame of reference always will present you with the same durations. So no, it's not an illusion to me, but neither is a 'quanta', or a 'flow'. To me they all seem to come with how you define what you look at, and from where you look.

...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.

Albert Einstein

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #104 on: 31/01/2011 18:58:32 »
To get to it being a 'illusion' I will have to stop looking at what I actually experience and instead exchange it for other 'time definitions'. But doing so will not change the amount of heartbeats, or my expiration date, as I actually experience it. There is a difference between conceptualizing that 'times arrow' differs as compared to others, with speed and mass, and looking at what's really happening to yourself. Knowing that others 'arrows' may magnify or contract relative yours does not change your own duration.

And so we comes back to what you can measure, and what you can know conceptually only :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #105 on: 31/01/2011 19:07:57 »
Your heartbeats are no illusion QC :)

And they will produce the same amount no matter what you do. Assuming, for example, one million heartbeats to one life. then that is the 'duration' taken under all circumstances, traveling near light, being on Earth, or at a neutron star, assuming that one could survive such of course:)

That's what relativity says about 'durations' and 'times arrow'.

That, your own 'room time geometry', aka Frame of reference always will present you with the same durations. So no, it's not an illusion to me, but neither is a 'quanta', or a 'flow'. To me they all seem to come with how you define what you look at, and from where you look.

...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.

Albert Einstein

Liar opinion is illusion too.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #106 on: 31/01/2011 19:11:34 »
Let me put it this way. In the twin experiment we have those twins meeting again, after one having taken a really speedy tour through the universe. When they meet one will be provably 'older' biologically. But, let me ask you. do you think any of them found their heartbeats changing relative their respective 'frames of reference'? If you think the durations experienced was a illusion shouldn't they do that? So your own unique 'room time geometry' will present you with one, defined, duration, no matter what you do. So the 'arrow' do exist, well as I see it, furthermore rather 'unchangingly' from your own measurable plane.

That you can't say the same about the universe in general is another thing. But from your perspective traveling close to light it will not be your 'durations' that have changed, any measurement you make will tell you the same thing. That da*ed universe is the one speeding up, not you :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #107 on: 31/01/2011 19:16:11 »
...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.

Albert Einstein


Ironic that he talked a lot about the speed of light, don't you think?

Also, as atoms can spontaneously change state, if there is no such time as time, does that mean they are in both states simultaneously? (I probably should not use the words simultaneous and spontaneous, because they both imply that time is real.)
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #108 on: 31/01/2011 19:21:22 »
...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.

Albert Einstein


Ironic that he talked a lot about the speed of light, don't you think?

Also, as atoms can spontaneously change state, if there is no such time as time, does that mean they are in both states simultaneously? (I probably should not use the words simultaneous and spontaneous, because they both imply that time is real.)

Why didn't you just say superpositioning :)

Einstein said that in relativity, the lifes of things, like particles that whizz across the galaxy to even our mortal lifetimes are all smeared out from past to the future. They are all frozen in time.

It's not that a particle exists simultaneously at the same time. The lifetime of a particle is smeared out over an eternal present. The eternal present is specifically chosen here because as we have seen, past and future are devoid of a true meaning in relativity.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #109 on: 31/01/2011 19:24:16 »

Ironic that he talked a lot about the speed of light, don't you think?

Ironic, or just being choosey? What other language would we use?

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #111 on: 31/01/2011 19:35:56 »

Ironic that he talked a lot about the speed of light, don't you think?

Ironic, or just being choosey? What other language would we use?
If you will create one useful thing then we shall believe in your some useless  things too. But you have not made. [:D]

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #112 on: 31/01/2011 19:38:05 »

Ironic that he talked a lot about the speed of light, don't you think?


Ironic, or just being choosey? What other language would we use?
If you will create one useful thing then we shall believe in your some useless  things too. But you have not made. [:D]

Why the hostility, and what kind of useful thing did you have in mind? I didn't make relativity theory, the mathematical assertions I speak of where derived purely from the soil of theoretical physics. If you don't like it, tough. I don't need to get my head around this. The only person loosing out will be yourself in the end of the day.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #113 on: 31/01/2011 19:40:17 »

Ironic that he talked a lot about the speed of light, don't you think?

Ironic, or just being choosey? What other language would we use?

I don't know what language he should have used, but I do know that the term "speed" is utterly meanlingless without a definition for time.

Talking about the speed of anything and also saying that there is no such thing as time is pure contradiction.
 
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #114 on: 31/01/2011 19:45:36 »
Yes, if you apply a conceptual outlook at 'Time' you will find that it somehow is directly connected to what and where you do/are. So 'Time' as such is, conceptually looking, of no exact definition/duration for SpaceTime. It's like we all existed in a clear sea, with all of us coloring the water differently depending on what we are doing relative someone else, the colors being our 'respective general time' when compared against each other, with the difference that those colors do not mix together.

But if we work after what each and one of us can measure in reality, then your duration will be as I said, the exact same, no matter what you do. Without that I would agree with you in that the arrow should be an illusion. And in a way, conceptually, it seems to be. But against it you have those unchanging durations I'm discussing.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #115 on: 31/01/2011 19:49:52 »
with all of us coloring the water differently


Look at me! I'm coloring the water yellow  [;D]

(sorry!)
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #116 on: 31/01/2011 19:50:41 »
:)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #117 on: 31/01/2011 19:54:21 »

Ironic that he talked a lot about the speed of light, don't you think?

Ironic, or just being choosey? What other language would we use?

I don't know what language he should have used, but I do know that the term "speed" is utterly meanlingless without a definition for time.

Talking about the speed of anything and also saying that there is no such thing as time is pure contradiction.
 

I know.

I have stated time and time again, especially in this thread that relativity, notably GR is purely contradictory to our everyday experiences. Therefore it should be no surprise Einstein said his theory dictated we sense an illusion we call time.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #118 on: 31/01/2011 20:08:15 »
Well, I beg to differ there QC.
But it is strange.

And that I can agree on :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #119 on: 31/01/2011 20:16:32 »
Let me put it this way. In the twin experiment we have those twins meeting again, after one having taken a really speedy tour through the universe. When they meet one will be provably 'older' biologically. But, let me ask you. do you think any of them found their heartbeats changing relative their respective 'frames of reference'? If you think the durations experienced was a illusion shouldn't they do that? So your own unique 'room time geometry' will present you with one, defined, duration, no matter what you do. So the 'arrow' do exist, well as I see it, furthermore rather 'unchangingly' from your own measurable plane.

That you can't say the same about the universe in general is another thing. But from your perspective traveling close to light it will not be your 'durations' that have changed, any measurement you make will tell you the same thing. That da*ed universe is the one speeding up, not you :)
Einstein has created some useful things therefore we trust in his useless things.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #120 on: 31/01/2011 20:18:55 »
I have stated time and time again, especially in this thread that relativity, notably GR is purely contradictory to our everyday experiences. Therefore it should be no surprise Einstein said his theory dictated we sense an illusion we call time.

But that's my point. You keep referring to time, and yet you maintain there is no such thing. If there is no such thing, we can't use any terms that rely on time's existence.

When you can establish an alternative to "time" and explain how we can use that to explain some of the phenomena we observe or how that might be a benefit science, people might take you seriously.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #121 on: 31/01/2011 22:19:39 »
I have stated time and time again, especially in this thread that relativity, notably GR is purely contradictory to our everyday experiences. Therefore it should be no surprise Einstein said his theory dictated we sense an illusion we call time.

But that's my point. You keep referring to time, and yet you maintain there is no such thing. If there is no such thing, we can't use any terms that rely on time's existence.

When you can establish an alternative to "time" and explain how we can use that to explain some of the phenomena we observe or how that might be a benefit science, people might take you seriously.

''Then again, who can ever have time, when we can never take time.''

The Merovingian

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #122 on: 31/01/2011 22:35:46 »
Anyway, the very fact that I use time in my language, is a reference itself that Einstein was right, strengthening his opinion that time is the ultimate illusion, and one which is of a psychological makeup. We cannot escape time in our makeup, it will always be part of our language, for what good would it be not to use such a description, for beings like ourselves that are so caught up in the moment?

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #123 on: 01/02/2011 00:58:52 »
Anyway, the very fact that I use time in my language, is a reference itself that Einstein was right, strengthening his opinion that time is the ultimate illusion, and one which is of a psychological makeup. We cannot escape time in our makeup, it will always be part of our language, for what good would it be not to use such a description, for beings like ourselves that are so caught up in the moment?

AFAIK Einstein never came up with any testable theory on this. As such, it's simply speculation which has no practical benefit to science.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #124 on: 01/02/2011 02:19:35 »
Quote from: yor-on
Your heartbeats are no illusion
Just because your heartbeats appear to remain constant in your F of R does not mean they are not an illusion, albeit a persistent one. 

Quote from: Geezer
Talking about the speed of anything and also saying that there is no such thing as time is pure contradiction.

Surely it is a contradiction only if you insist that motion exists. If the cosmos is infinite and unchanging (like Barbour's Platonia) then change, motion, speed and time are all illusions.  Of course, they are illusions that are absolutely necessary for us to make sense of our restricted view of reality.  Without these persistent illusions we would be unable to make sense of our world.   

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #125 on: 01/02/2011 02:44:27 »
Well Bill, I can't speak for your heartbeats, but I trust in mine.
There is a limit for everything. Descartes said "Je pense donc je suis," I think, therefore I am, but I'm sure he counted on his heart keeping on beating as he said it:)

As for the comparison it's pretty straightforward. As long as you accept that there is a 'reality' outside your skull you will have to accept that it contains durations. If you then look at those durations you will find that they do not change for you, no matter what you do.

As soon as you lift in someone else's time measuring, not agreeing with yours, you will have stepped outside what you can measure and certify as 'real' in favor of a conceptual description, general and resting on second hand measurements. One of the things making physics accepted is that the experiments must be repeatable. Any secondhand information you have about clocks will fail that test. You will not be able to prove it, as little as he will be able to prove your definition of the 'time/durations'. But we all know that as soon you two are in the same approximate 'room time geometry' you will find that you agree on the durations and time there.

It all depends on how you see it. You can, if you like, consider yourself without substance only expressed as thoughts of no defined duration, but there will still needed to be a linear causality chain to them, and that I will call 'times arrow'. But if you do you better be quiet about it. I saw some men in white coats :) And one never knows. They may not accept the statement that you only are an avid follower of physics, trust me on that at least.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #126 on: 01/02/2011 03:30:25 »
Surely it is a contradiction only if you insist that motion exists. If the cosmos is infinite and unchanging (like Barbour's Platonia) then change, motion, speed and time are all illusions.  Of course, they are illusions that are absolutely necessary for us to make sense of our restricted view of reality.  Without these persistent illusions we would be unable to make sense of our world.   

If you maintain these are illusions, I'd like to see a theory that we can actually test. Do you know of any?

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #127 on: 01/02/2011 09:20:24 »
Surely it is a contradiction only if you insist that motion exists. If the cosmos is infinite and unchanging (like Barbour's Platonia) then change, motion, speed and time are all illusions.  Of course, they are illusions that are absolutely necessary for us to make sense of our restricted view of reality.  Without these persistent illusions we would be unable to make sense of our world.   

If you maintain these are illusions, I'd like to see a theory that we can actually test. Do you know of any?



When it comes to quantum cosmology, very little of it can ever really be proven, so I am afraid that is a no. It is akin to singularities, and all the other phenomenon of quantum cosmology we just beleive in without question.

Again, you are all so quick to believe a photon does not experience time, yet when I tell you the universe doesn't, you all shudder with disbeleif... and it's not surely because I said it. I have cited several papers all saying the same thing, so the problem cannot be with me, it must be with you lot.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #128 on: 01/02/2011 09:49:26 »
Quote from: yor-on
Your heartbeats are no illusion
Just because your heartbeats appear to remain constant in your F of R does not mean they are not an illusion, albeit a persistent one. 

Quote from: Geezer
Talking about the speed of anything and also saying that there is no such thing as time is pure contradiction.

Surely it is a contradiction only if you insist that motion exists. If the cosmos is infinite and unchanging (like Barbour's Platonia) then change, motion, speed and time are all illusions.  Of course, they are illusions that are absolutely necessary for us to make sense of our restricted view of reality.  Without these persistent illusions we would be unable to make sense of our world.   

Wonderful replies Bill. Yes, think of our existences as a frame of reference. Just like a photon where time ceases to exist, the universe as a whole also has no time pass.

Well done!

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #129 on: 01/02/2011 09:54:04 »
Anyway, the very fact that I use time in my language, is a reference itself that Einstein was right, strengthening his opinion that time is the ultimate illusion, and one which is of a psychological makeup. We cannot escape time in our makeup, it will always be part of our language, for what good would it be not to use such a description, for beings like ourselves that are so caught up in the moment?

AFAIK Einstein never came up with any testable theory on this. As such, it's simply speculation which has no practical benefit to science.

eerrrr... no not quite Geezer. Saying that is completely symmetric to saying Einsteins theory was all speculations. There was a mathematical basis behind his theory, also it agreed well with experimentation. It was not all baseless speculations.

The fact no time passes for the universe is a direct consequence of relativity. If you believe in relativity and you are not one of these cranks that go about saying it is wrong, then you must come to understand that when I say time does not pass in a quantum cosmological model, I say this because theory permits me to, and I have relativity's stamp of approval. I could go into the math if that would persuade you to consider this more than mere speculation if you wanted.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #130 on: 01/02/2011 10:03:28 »
Anyway, the very fact that I use time in my language, is a reference itself that Einstein was right, strengthening his opinion that time is the ultimate illusion, and one which is of a psychological makeup. We cannot escape time in our makeup, it will always be part of our language, for what good would it be not to use such a description, for beings like ourselves that are so caught up in the moment?

AFAIK Einstein never came up with any testable theory on this. As such, it's simply speculation which has no practical benefit to science.

What do you mean no practical benefit for science? Just because it has no practical benefit for you, does not mean science does not benefit.

This I have been speaking of, has caused one of the most interesting paradoxes in science. As Bohr said, now we know the paradox, we can now work on the solution.

So, I completely disagree. It's very beneficial; and for those who want to learn how to unify the forces, and relativity to quantum mechanics, then they need to understand the nature time - it would be very beneficial of us to do so.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #131 on: 01/02/2011 16:20:26 »
You know, time invites people to a mess. It's one of the most messed up fields I know. Some mix durations with how the brain treats it, wanting to find the answer to times arrow in the brains electro chemistry. Others falls back on that it seems to differ from frame to frame.

None of that changes the facts. We live in a macroscopically linear universe when it comes to times arrow. Your arrow and expiration date do not change with different frames of reference, or 'room time geometries' as I call it.

To prove times arrow an illusion you will need to introduce another way of how the Universe 'communicates'. People still make the terrible mistake of searching for one 'single solution' to a problem, but our universe doesn't treat itself that way. To see what I mean I'll point out Lorentz contraction. With it and time dilation distances are no truth any more, but I don't see people thinking about that? Why, isn't that really weird? That no speed is sacrosanct any more, no distance an truth? What does it make the universe?

So, if I now speed up all matter in the universe near light, but letting them keep the exact same speed-proportions relative each other. How would the universe look to us? Would SpaceTime contract? It should.

Would all matter suddenly glow with 'potential energy' :)
Really? No, matter would behave the exact same.

And would your arrow disappear? Your life-expectancy shrink.
Nope.

The arrow is here to stay, to me the question is what it is, and what makes it. But stop calling it an 'illusion'. If it was I should be able to 'stop the universe', but in reality we all know it's the other way around. The universe will stop me, and you, and you, and you, ad infinitum..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline simplified

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 428
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #132 on: 01/02/2011 16:43:41 »
Surely it is a contradiction only if you insist that motion exists. If the cosmos is infinite and unchanging (like Barbour's Platonia) then change, motion, speed and time are all illusions.  Of course, they are illusions that are absolutely necessary for us to make sense of our restricted view of reality.  Without these persistent illusions we would be unable to make sense of our world.   

If you maintain these are illusions, I'd like to see a theory that we can actually test. Do you know of any?


They have formulated their definition of time: " Time is illusion ". Let's check up: then illusion is time. [:o]

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #133 on: 01/02/2011 18:16:46 »
QC - If you can't cite an experiment to confirm this is anything more that speculation, it remains speculation.

Just because Einstein kicked some ideas around in his latter years, it does not make it accepted science. Remember, he also thought that QM was nonsense, and so far, he was wrong on that one.

If you can't provide any empirical evidence to support your ideas, please don't tell other people time is all lies and illusion when all the empirical evidence confirms the existence of time. To do so is only creating unnecessary confusion.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2011 19:14:26 by Geezer »
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline QuantumClue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 613
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #134 on: 01/02/2011 19:49:20 »
QC - If you can't cite an experiment to confirm this is anything more that speculation, it remains speculation.

Just because Einstein kicked some ideas around in his latter years, it does not make it accepted science. Remember, he also thought that QM was nonsense, and so far, he was wrong on that one.

If you can't provide any empirical evidence to support your ideas, please don't tell other people time is all lies and illusion when all the empirical evidence confirms the existence of time. To do so is only creating unnecessary confusion.

I know you are a moderator, but you are bound to discipline. I will surely report you for derailing a thread with baseless claims.

Relativity is not an ''idea which was kicked around''.

Why does this part escape you so evidently?

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #135 on: 01/02/2011 20:35:49 »
I was not referring to relativity. I was referring to his ideas on time being an illusion.

And I'm not derailing the thread. I'm just asking you to present some evidence to support your claim that time is an illusion. That was an idea that Einstein came up with very late in his career, long after his work on relativity.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #136 on: 01/02/2011 21:08:56 »
My own opinion of Einsteins Statement 'time is an illusion' is that what he meant was the Newtonian idea of 'absolute time, unchanging'. That one is indeed an illusion when comparing 'frames of references'. But on the other hand, Newton was absolutely correct if we just stick to what we can measure directly, without comparing it with other sources.

It's a little like expecting Einstein to have refuted QM as a theory. He was uncomfortable with some of its ideas, and he didn't accept it as the 'final answer to life the universe and all' but he did accept it.

"On the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense variety of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible. But on one point, curiously enough, there was failure: it proved impossible to associate with these Schrodinger waves definite motions of the mass points - and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction. The difficulty appeared insurmountable until it was overcome by Born in a way as simple as it was unexpected.

The de Broglie-Schrodinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system. (Quantum Mechanics, Albert Einstein, 1940)

Albert Einstein Quotes on Quantum Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Light, Quanta, Particle-Wave Duality, History and Evolution of Quantum Theory. "It seems to be clear, therefore, that Born's statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible one. The wave function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system; it relates rather to many systems, to an 'ensemble of systems' in the sense of statistical mechanics." (Albert Einstein, on Quantum Theory, 1936)

All attempts to represent the particle and wave features displayed in the phenomena of light and matter, by direct recourse to a space time model, have so far ended in failure. And Heisenberg has convincingly shown, from an empirical point of view, that any decision as to a rigorously deterministic structure of nature is definitely ruled out, because of the atomistic structure of our experimental apparatus. (Quantum Physics, Albert Einstein, 1954)

Albert Einstein Quotes on Quantum Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Light, Quanta, Particle-Wave Duality, History and Evolution of Quantum Theory "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken." (Albert Einstein, 'The Born-Einstein Letters' Max Born, translated by Irene Born, Macmillan 1971)

I still do not believe that the statistical method of the Quantum Theory is the last word, but for the time being I am alone in my opinion. (Albert Einstein, 1936, 'The Born-Einstein Letters' Max Born, translated by Irene Born, Macmillan 1971)

And he said one very wise thing. "I think that matter must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

I'm sure almost all of us agree on that one. Matter exist, as the moon, very much so.

Here's a nice paper on thermodynamics and time  
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #137 on: 01/02/2011 21:19:20 »
Thanks Yoron. According to this gent, AE's views became a bit more extreme latterly, but that may not be accurate.

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."

There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #138 on: 01/02/2011 21:37:25 »
This is what Einstein actually said.

"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."

The rest of it is the authors assumptions about what he meant by it, I would say :)

If you look at the citation he is only telling us that from a conceptual viewpoint you can't lift out one 'room time geometry' from all that makes a universe and say. "This is the gold standard for time." And he's perfectly right in that. But he would also agree with me that my 'times arrow', as measured in my 'frame of reference' by me, to be unchanging and 'absolute', delivering me the same timely experience, no matter where I was, or did.

The question about 'durations' aka times arrow doesn't crave that all durations has to be of the same exact 'amount', simultaneously in a universe. but it do seem to crave that they, to you, need to deliver the exact same amount for you, constantly and unchangingly so? Might have to do with thermodynamics that one, and biological living systems, and therefore also with chaos theory.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #139 on: 01/02/2011 21:45:26 »
Ah, right! Thanks.

Yes, I completely agree that there is no "gold standard" as Einstein predicted. So, saying Einstein said time was an illusion is something of an illusion?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #140 on: 01/02/2011 21:57:22 »
Time is an illusion, as soon as you compare frames of reference  :)

Your personal 'arrow of time' on the other hand, will give you the exact same expiration date, no matter how fast you go, or what 'infinite mass' you happen to put your camper by.

And that's weird, ain't it :)

But I differ between 'time' and 'times arrow'. When you look at a universe as a 'whole' then there is no 'now'. And from a strictly measuring view there can't be any 'now' existent as all 'events' happens before you experience them, but loosely we can speak about a 'now' if we stick to what you can measure 'now' from and in your 'frame of reference/room time geometry', that as I see it :)

I use 'room time geometry' because what you see is in fact the whole universe, and all adapted to your 'frame of reference'. Frames of reference makes them into a puzzle of sorts, but the universe will always be a 'whole experience' for anyone observing it.

Ahem ::))
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #141 on: 01/02/2011 22:10:15 »
Yes, I agree with your points, although I'd prefer to say that time is not a universal constant rather than an illusion. (There is no master clock.)

A possible analogy might be atmospheric pressure. It's certainly not constant either, but it's also not an illusion.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #142 on: 01/02/2011 22:22:57 »
Yeah, but those room time geometries is all different depending on what you compare them too. Take three ships and Earth, all with different speeds relative each other. Let all three ships 'coast' uniformly moving. You can now pick any of them as the reference point for 'zero motion' and define all other speeds relative that one. Any of those objects (including Earth) will have a different relation Time dilation and Lorentz contraction relative any of the other objects.

All of them will have a unique 'time' relative you. But all of you will, when stopping at Earth, agree that you have the, more or less, exact same 'original' time durations, and that you will be able to confirm by measuring :)

Traveling again none of you will experience your 'time durations' or 'distances' to change, and no measurements will tell you differently. In what manner you might find 'stuff' changing it won't be you, but the universe and those other objects. A really interesting question to me if it really is possible to assume that every 'room time geometry' is the same?

An impossible one to answer really, but it seems like a possibility as we all will share, almost, the same durations when joining.

So I find 'time' weird, and how 'room time geometries' adds up to a universe. But 'Times arrow' I'm pretty sure of existing, for us all.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #143 on: 01/02/2011 22:26:58 »
Agreed! (My analogy was not very good [:D])
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #144 on: 01/02/2011 22:32:41 »
Nah, it wasn't bad. I'm constantly seeing things I miss when I write. That's why I have to, eh, rearrange them :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #145 on: 01/02/2011 22:39:27 »
"A really interesting question to me if it really is possible to assume that every 'room time geometry' is the same?" That one came out weird :)

What I meant was if there was a possibility of a 'original duration' being the same, as it never is measurably changing from any of those four objects own 'room time geometry'.

Because if that is a possibility, then what is it that change?
You, or the universe?
==

If you want to treat it as 'information', ignoring what we see as 'real', like matter and space and light, then. Is it the way the information is presented only? No, that can't be true as we then would have no time dilation, only the illusion of it. And Muon's hitting Earth is a good example of time dilation. So the information we receive have to be real, but if my information also informs me that I do not change? Why would motion, or mass, be able to to change my whole universe? Remember also that we theoretically can imagine Plank sized Black holes, after all, isn't that one of the things CERN hopes to create?
==

Ah, what I meant there was that 'size' as long as we're talking about being over Plank scale, is no hindrance to changing a universe, time dilation and Lorentz contraction-wise. As the 'infinite  gravity' at its 'center' should create the same time dilation/Lorentz contraction than any other Black holes 'center' should be able to do, as I see it.
==

So, what do I know about where I am? Well, it's my own 'room time geometry' centered on my 'frame of reference' so? But it's no unique thing, is it? You have one, he, she, even that pebble must have one slightly different from mine? And still we all swear on that we all are here together, don't we :) I can pick up that pebble and throw it so fast that it almost reach light speed, well, not really :) Would that change its 'room time geometry'? Would its SpaceTime contract?

Frames of reference is a headache :)
« Last Edit: 01/02/2011 23:27:53 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #146 on: 01/02/2011 22:54:51 »
Yoron,

Not sure I get "original duration". I'm assuming "room time" is like local frame. Is that right?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force ćther.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #147 on: 01/02/2011 23:10:15 »
I mean whatever type of measurement you do by it, involving a defined duration. Nowadays we use lights 'vibrations' for defining durations, like that cool clock you have :)

And as long as you all, on Earth, find those 'durations' to agree with each other measurements then that's what I like to call 'original'. A little like having Earth as the 'origin' and final measurement for the 'twin experiment'.

If it is so that we all will measure a more or less exact same 'duration' being at one same place. Then find our measurements to still 'ring true' when speeding away, that is, from our own frame never differ with what we measured on Earth. Then the question becomes, do they?

Or are they actually correct. If so, can I conceptually assume all 'durations' aka 'times arrow' to be unchangingly 'the same' when measured inside their own frames, no matter from where one does it? Then what you see as differing with speed is an expression of an 'outside', communicating, with you and your 'arrow of time' keeping the same 'duration' constantly, never changing.

and also, that would give us a weird 'gold standard' of sorts, in that from that perspective all 'durations' would have a 'ground state', if you like :)
==

And yeah, 'room time geometries' are always local to me. Yours, or someone else's 'frame of reference', but as observed from, and by, themselves.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2011 23:33:12 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #148 on: 02/02/2011 00:58:06 »
Look at lights speed in a vacuum. There is a similarity to me in that it never will differ for you, no matter what 'frame of reference' being the 'source' of it. But its frequency will, in fact the frequency I think is a rather good approximation to how 'contracted' and 'time dilated' something else will be relative you. At least I think that's correct? Will need to ponder that one, won't I :)

But that weird 'speed' seems as unchangeable as your own measurements and 'durations' are to you.
==
The problem with using this idea becomes in that.

Assume that we all have a unique 'SpaceTime'. Not only you but 'everything' from Plank scale and up. Then assume that in their own 'room time geometry' all 'durations' constantly being the same unchanging, that is, a 'gold standard' of sorts. Then assume your 'room time geometry' interacting with all other 'room time geometries'. This means that with every object observed there comes a complimentary unique 'SpaceTime' although to you 'invincible' as any 'information' you receive is filtered through your 'SpaceTime'

They all have the same 'original duration' as I defined it. But, they all will describe any other 'room time geometry' as presenting, for example, a 'twisted' duration. That means that you won't agree on the time. But we still have the idea of them containing a same 'duration' as proved by you moving to into their 'room time geometry' finding that your measurements correlate perfectly with theirs.

Can both those statements be true?

That we all have one unchanging 'arrow of time' but still find the other ones 'arrow of time' to be different when being in different 'room time geometries'?

Where is the 'interface' between those descriptions?
==

And what does it make 'durations' aka 'the arrow of time'?
A local phenomena only?

Well, yes but, if it is right, shared by us all? How can something be so extremely 'local' at the same time as everything have it, those 'ground state durations' as I call them? And how, if my assumption of those 'frames of reference' becoming subtly 'rearranged', from Plank scale and up, is true. How do they 'connect'. Because they do, into particles, molecules, matter, us, and a whole seamless universe.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 01:40:15 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #149 on: 02/02/2011 02:09:23 »
You know Geezer, your idea of time being an expression of motion may be on the dot. In a slightly weird manner, speed gives a time dilation. But if your 'durations' won't change according to your measurements and you still come back finding yourself now younger than your twin?

What exactly made that 'change'? It's one of sciences golden rules that gets violated here if we accept that we should disregard our measurements and experiments in advantage for a conceptual truth, unable to be proven where we are.

Einstein said 'SpaceTime', not Space and Time did he :)

So what did we change? Our whole 'room time geometry' of course. And that one can only be one. To any of us there will only be one existing, no matter what others report. And I think it acceptable to look at it as a whole thing. Not differing it in my 'spaceship' versus the rest of the universe. After all, everything change when you speed up. And if you accept Lorentz contraction and time dilation as real then those ships you meet will have contracted and relative you be time dilated too.

So, what is energy?
==

One of the best proofs I know for Lorentz contraction being a real thing, no illusion, is to spin a round plate as close as you can to light speed and then watch it 'crack up' as it contracts around its rim. Well, we can't, but we have Black holes that are assumed to spin close to light. Maybe we could use them for testing if it's correct? Don't know how but maybe, near the EV?

Then we have the muons of course :)
==

If you look at speed from that point of view its no 'speed' anymore. It's a contraction of the 'room time' you exist in. And that 'room time' have to be only yours, otherwise all would share the contraction.

So now we have two questions.

What is energy?
And what is distance?
==

Accepting that it is a whole 'room time geometry' that gets changed we can test it too. Because then your room time will behave differently, and it does. But what about those unchanging durations and measurements I make inside my ship then? There distance never changed, and the times 'durations' is still the same to me as they were on Earth?

« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 03:03:03 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."