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

  • 245 Replies
  • 62091 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

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 #150 on: 02/02/2011 03:08:46 »
well, either you think of 'one SpaceTime' with all those 'frames of reference' constantly melting into each other, more or less magically and 'invincibly'. Or you decide that we all have different 'room time geometries' and that even though we share and perceive only one, the one that each one of us perceive must be slightly different and unique. If you choose the later it's no longer any miracle that others 'SpaceTimes' won't get influenced by yours.
==

But it won't explain why we all perceive it as the same 'SpaceTime'. And it don't explain how we cooperate and live together. And neither does it address how we interact, gaining energy. After all, then there should be a infinity of 'SpaceTimes' if that was right, right?
=

Why we perceive only one is fairly simple though. You can't perceive anything more than that, can you? :)
==

I wrote "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?"

That one becomes slightly weird. If I assume that my whole 'room time geometry' contracted and also assume that 'time' is a indivisible part of it, why didn't my time contract too? If it did I might assume that the time dilation would work the other way, and that the one traveling would become the older twin. So my 'room' contracts, but my 'time' magnifies?

Think of it as equally large 'measures'. With the rooms 'markers' contracting, and the other indivisible part of a SpaceTime, the 'times' markers growing. That is, each 'duration' of 'times arrow' must have 'expanded' for me in a way, 'slowing down' my aging as compared to my twin on Earth. A little like squeezing a balloon in the middle watching it adapt by bulging out at the ends. It's a very unscientific description, and all of this is a thought experiment, please remember this. But it catches one important part of SpaceTime, its indivisibility.

We think we have a 'SpaceTime' where the conservation laws rules. Where nothing is 'lost' and where 'energy' is what gets consumed in the transformations of work, to finally 'work done'.

So what is 'Energy'?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 04:03:13 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 #151 on: 02/02/2011 03:56:05 »
I think there are limitless spacetimes as you suggest, but as all motion is controlled by the time within a frame, everything behaves normally within that frame.
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 #152 on: 02/02/2011 04:04:55 »
Yep, and none of us will ever perceive it differently. At least as I understand it :)
Motion is one weird idea :)

I mean, it seems so simple, we all know what it is, but it changes a whole 'SpaceTime'. And you don't even need to 'move'. Invariant mass does it as well :)
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 04:08:02 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 #153 on: 02/02/2011 04:33:19 »
Think of gravity waves. We have found indications/evidence of them existing when looking at binary stars. When such a wave rolls through you, you both contract and expand, but you won't ever notice it. Neither will you 'break'. Now think of 'time', not its 'arrow' but primeval time itself. Imagine it as a ocean joined 390 degrees against 'reality', which means our other three dimensions :) is seamlessly joined to it, none existing on its own. I'm not saying that you can't have one or two dimensional SpaceTimes, but we don't have them, as far as I know.

Now consider the arrow, let us assume that as the 'room contracts' times arrow finds it 'denser'. What happens when traffic meets a 'obstacle' like the road shrinking to only one lane? it slows down doesn't it? And what happens when there becomes four lanes again, it speeds up, right?

Now, I do not think of time as an ocean, well mostly I don't at least. And I do not think of SpaceTime as something getting 'denser' as it contracts :) But I still think that this might be an analogue to what should happen for 'times arrow' to slow down, without me being able to notice and measure it.

And now I better stop, before my imagination throws me over the edge :)
==

Just one question.
Assuming this analogue was correct. What would it do to my suggestion that all 'durations' are the same, as measured from ones own frame of reference? Would it invalidate it, or not?

 :)


« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 04:46:57 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 #154 on: 02/02/2011 06:30:53 »
Think of gravity waves.

Must I? I can't even think about what I should be doing tomorrow [;D]

Seriously, yes. All durations are the same relative to ones own frame of reference. While I'm sure you could drive a Mack (or Volvo) truck through my atmospheric pressure analogy, it's not so unlike time. Wherever you are, you, and everything else, are subject to that pressure (or time). And time (or spacetime if you prefer) rules all.

Nothing can escape it (well, maybe sub atomic particles can) so all processes (physical, chemical, etc) are dictated by time within a locality (or frame).

If you take it to an extreme, if time were to stop in a given locality (which I suspect is impossible), and we were in that locality, how would we know that it had even stopped, or for how long? As time clearly controls motion, if time stops, so does motion.

Or,

Motion does not determine time. Time determines motion.

« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 07:35:23 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 #155 on: 02/02/2011 12:54:18 »
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.

yeah, that is relativity - timelessness is part of relativity, a direct solution to General Relativity, hence it is not merely an idea which was kicked around. Understand that and you might get over yourself for a second.

*

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 #156 on: 02/02/2011 13:28:01 »
Let's consider the opposite then. Time as being non-existent. That one is very tricky. Because as soon as you have a linear causality chain you will find we have a name for it, namely 'times arrow'. You might want to call it thermodynamics, but I don't.

In fact it still will be a linear causality chain macroscopically. You see, I'm free to in-cooperate any ideas that exist into that 'arrow'. So you might want to look at it as some weird causality-chain defined by 'decay' where there is nothing 'in reality' that have an general order, but where it all change differently at some quantum level. That's cool with me, and you know what :) That's our arrow of time.

The only thing an 'arrow' introduces is the idea of a 'future', a 'past' and the 'present'. So to 'kill' that idea you will have take away those attribute, invalidating you capacity of cogitation as you 'disappear in a puff of smoke', or as we all 'know it all' instantly, as we no longer is bound by any linear process ordering our thoughts, events, etc..

As I see it.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 13:30:23 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #157 on: 02/02/2011 14:21:00 »
QC - would be interested in details of the general solutions to GR that require time not to pass; there are some that end up in large closed loops - which is bad, and slightly naive simplifications which require stationarity.   
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

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 #158 on: 02/02/2011 15:20:06 »
Assume that we all have different 'room time geometries' but still share only one 'SpaceTime':)

Can one make sense of that?
How about times arrow? Could that be what differ one indivisible 'SpaceTime' into those 'room time geometries'? Nah, or maybe? I don't know if that's possible, after all, we see a different 'SpaceTime' when speeding, distances time and all. Okay, turn it around. Is there anything unchanging in all those 'room time geometries'? Something 'common' to them all? Well, the constants are still the same, ain't they?

So we have those to lean on.

Let's look at a time dilation from the perspective of all 'durations' being of one same 'size'. how would I explain that I 'slowed down' relative the universe if so? I didn't, it was the universe 'speeding up' I say, but that includes all other in it too.

Yeah, why not? I have 'kept my durations' relative the the universe. But isn't their 'time' also of this 'even unchanging duration'? How did they 'speed up' then?

So? I don't think it's a good one.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 15:21:41 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 #159 on: 02/02/2011 15:33:39 »
So we have two choices as I see it. Assuming, and there is nothing I know disproving this, that all durations actually are of one same 'size/duration'. How do I define a time dilation?

Either I have to use the idea of 'everything' in my 'time dilation' acting in a magnifying/contracting manner on me, that means presenting me with something acting solely on me, like if I was in a bubble of some sort, but that won't explain that contraction of space. If I want to explain that I will have to define a Lorentz contraction as being an illusion, and keeping the time dilation only.

Or I will use the idea of all 'room time geometries' being unique. then I change 'my SpaceTime' by speeding. But that leaves us with explaining why we can interact, and exist, together seamlessly, and why your 'durations/aging' answered that 'speed' of mine, if we now exist in different 'SpaceTimes'?

A third is defining it as 'frames of reference' but as that is the same as my 'room time geometries' the only difference being that all 'frames' are treated equally, and our 'reality' only can exist on a conceptual plane?

That one does not satisfy me.
==

In fact, my 'room time geometries' are no different from 'frames of reference'. Both need to be defined in their interacting with 'everything else', and both need to be explained from the concept of us only observing one SpaceTime.
==

So what is it, 'interacting' in between everything else?
Radiation?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 15:45:37 by yor_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 #160 on: 02/02/2011 18:19:44 »
People thought   mirage is illusion of water, but  mirage is sky under a corner of refraction  [:D]

*

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 #161 on: 02/02/2011 18:24:38 »
Yeah, it's a truly weird subject. But time dilation is a direct result of 'frames of reference', or if you like, the idea of 'frames of reference' is the answer to 'time dilation'.

And as it exists?
"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 #162 on: 02/02/2011 18:53:23 »
Yeah, it's a truly weird subject. But time dilation is a direct result of 'frames of reference', or if you like, the idea of 'frames of reference' is the answer to 'time dilation'.

And as it exists?
I have no right to answer your question,because I do not recognise imaginary experiments of Einstein. [:-X]

*

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 #163 on: 02/02/2011 18:58:37 »
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.

yeah, that is relativity - timelessness is part of relativity, a direct solution to General Relativity, hence it is not merely an idea which was kicked around. Understand that and you might get over yourself for a second.

I never seen Einstein saying that the 'arrow' doesn't exist?
Can you show me where he said that?

That he said that there is no 'now' doesn't state that you don't have a 'arrow of time'. He just defined in from a conceptual point of view in where your 'now' and mine 'now' will differ. But the arrow of time is what makes you age, and think.
===

And another thing, saying that time doesn't exist in fact invalidates Einsteins 'SpaceTime'. Notice the combination :) Space&Time. Einstein saw it as one 'whole thing', indivisible as I've understood it?

Maybe there are some quote from him where he redefine relativity too, that I missed?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 19:27:11 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 #164 on: 02/02/2011 19:43:35 »
"In 1949, Gödel wrote an essay in which he used Einstein’s relativity theory to point out that we can send a message to the past. Gödel went a step further. Using Einstein’s general theory of relativity, he arrived at a universe whereupon we can physically travel to the past. He stated that “by making a round trip on a rocket ship in a sufficiently wide curve, it is possible in these worlds to travel into any region of the past, present, and future, and back again, exactly as it is possible in other worlds to travel to distant parts of space.”

  In the same book, some pages later in an article entitled “Reply to Criticisms,” Einstein commends politely his colleague’s paper with these words: “Kurt Gödel’s essay constitutes, in my opinion, an important contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially to the analysis of the concept of time.” This often-quoted statement has been used as a reaffirmation by Einstein that, according to physics, time travel is possible. But did Einstein really confirm Gödel’s findings? Not at all. Just the opposite. He immediately wrote: “The problem here involved disturbed me already at the time of the building up of the general theory of relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying it.”

    How does Einstein clarify the issue? He doesn’t do it within general theory of relativity. He goes outside relativity to thermodynamics and invokes the Second Law, the law of irreversibility of natural processes and the increase of entropy—the inseparable sister of energy. With the aid of a diagram, Einstein shows Gödel that we cannot “telegraph” back to our own past because the flow of time has an arrow and “there exists no free choice for the direction of the arrow.” He makes it clear that he wants to secure “the one-sided (asymmetrical) character of time.” These are strong and unambiguous words. Einstein explains the reason: “What is essential in this is the fact that the sending of a signal is, in the sense of thermodynamics, an irreversible process, a process which is connected with the growth of entropy (whereas, according to our present knowledge, all elementary processes are reversible).” "
===

And from a solely local definition of a 'frame of reference'. Defining and measuring from its 'inside', whatever that may be, we will find 'entropy' work, or as I see it 'times arrow' keeping a constant duration, the arrow unmeasurable as differing, no matter what you do, speeding away or not.

And that's what I call unique 'room time geometries'.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 19:47:04 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 #165 on: 02/02/2011 20:04:00 »
The problem of 'time' only comes to be when we try to define it as 'unchanging' for a whole universe. We all know from our own reality that we have a 'arrow' splitting reality in a past as well as a 'future' with something we call a 'present' or 'now' defining where we 'are' in a temporal fashion. What you want to call that 'arrow' I don't really care, as long as you agree on it being undifferentiated, as measured from, and in, your own 'frame of reference'.

And then we come to Newtons 'universally unchanging time'. Well, forget it. That one is a illusion, a conceptual expectation, coming from our experiences of being able to correlate our 'arrows' with each other, inside a more or less common 'frame of reference' aka Earth.

That's not the truth. Einstein gave us the way it really worked. But as measured from the 'inside' of one single 'frame' Newtons definition will hold as far as I can see.

So?
==

Maybe it would be worth it defining what one think might be a 'illusion'?

A. If you make a measurement inside your own 'frame of reference' stating some fact, testable for others. Is that a illusion?

B. If you can't find a way/experiment to prove a proposition to be false, does that make that proposal a illusion?

C. If you believe yourself to define a truth conceptually, without being able to test it inside your 'frame of reference', is that an illusion?
==

A. My idea of 'common durations' of 'times arrow' inside your 'frame of reference' is testable, if we use a wristwatch against heartbeats, or any clock as compare to any other time device, keeping durations.

As for B.? The only way to define it as 'false' is from a 'conceptual standpoint' as I know it? Making a general statement that 'time', or a 'now',doesn't exist on that 'conceptual plane'.

As for C.?
Well, that's for those of you that see it as there existing no 'arrow' to decide.
Is C. a illusion?

It's a tangle that one.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 20:49:08 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1862
    • View Profile
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?
« Reply #166 on: 02/02/2011 20:41:55 »
Quote from: yor-on
as measured from the 'inside' of one single 'frame' Newtons definition will hold as far as I can see.

Surely, if that were not the case, the "frame" would not be an inertial frame.

*

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 #167 on: 02/02/2011 20:53:41 »
I'm losing you there Bill?
A inertial frame is defined as a uniformly moving one?

Do you mean that in a accelerating frame my heartbeats will differ when compared to my wristwatch? That is, that times arrow, when measured, will express itself differently. If you mean that, do you have a experiment, or a reference to how?
==

If you assume a constantly (uniformly) accelerating frame, then we're talking gravity according to the principle of equivalence. That should then be Earth. And there my statement will hold.

If you assume an non-constant acceleration? I don't see how 'times arrow' can differ if measured inside that frame of reference? To see the difference I understand it as you will have to compare 'frames of reference'. If we take two space ships coasting either can become your 'inertial frame of reference' for the other. If one of them accelerates, constantly or not, you will observe a temporal difference when compared to your 'frame of reference', just as they will assign to you too, as they pass you. But that only is possible in comparisons between 'frames'. From the inside of its 'frame of reference' the accelerating ship will measure the same timely durations as they had when coasting, well, as far as I know?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 21:22:44 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 #168 on: 02/02/2011 22:24:21 »
You might be thinking of what happens with a photon that get sent out from a light-source in the front of a accelerating ship, wandering to the aft where you receive it. But then you're thinking energy, and not times arrow.

And as I understands it, when it comes to the energy in a constantly accelerating ship, as that is equivalent to the photon falling into a gravity well, it will blue shift to you sitting further down the gravity well. The same goes for a non-constant acceleration.

Associating the changing frequency with timely 'durations'?

If we would use the light waves as a clock, defining 'times arrow' as ten cycles per second. Then measuring the wave inside that accelerating ship finding it to be twenty cycles per second as it now is compressed relative us. We then could assume that a second now was of a longer duration than before. So far I'm with you, assuming that I'm right in my assumptions about what happens with the light here.

This reasoning is slightly wrong, the clock measuring it inside the ship would be as influenced by gravity, being matter waves, as all other waves. For it to work we will have to assume someone still relative the acceleration measuring that light. So now I'm dropping into 'frames of reference' anyway, comparing between them. But it still works I think.

But notice that the 'durations' I'm discussing as 'never changing', those measured inside any 'frame of reference', or 'room time geometry', won't change. They will, to you, be of the exact same 'duration' as always.

Why I think this works is because the photon will 'cycle up' in 'energy' relative you watching it as it 'falls' into that gravity well. And so should you, assuming that matter-waves react to gravity the same as ordinary waves do. And the reason you do have nothing to do with motion, rather your proximity to the gravity well? 

But, and this is a big 'but'. Either it's like i think but then it can't be only the gravity, can it? No, it has to be the whole 'room time geometry' hasn't it? not only gravity but the speed in itself.. Or I'm totally bicycling up the walls :)


But then consider what happens if you're up very close to light speed, now turning of your engines, not accelerating any more. According to my earlier reasoning the 'gravity well' that our engine created stops to 'exist'. And as we now are uniformly 'coasting' there is nothing differing us from any other uniformly moving object. Inside that ship the light from your light-bulb no longer will show you any other cycles than it would do from any other uniformly moving, or if you like, inertial object. So does this mean that the relativistic phenomena created by my velocity, outside the ship, have disappeared, just because I turned of the engine? The light from suns in front of me no longer blue shifted relative me?

Not as I know. So using the frequency as a proof for a time dilation inside your own frame of reference? I don't know, you got a point though. But then if we want to use that as a 'acid test' a time dilation only can come to be when accelerating, and as soon as you stop accelerating, no matter your velocity, all time dilation should 'stop'? Also it becomes a question of the Lorentz contraction, as that one still should be there, even with the engines of.

If the 'time dilation' only exist in your acceleration, then if we still see a Lorentz contraction outside the ship? Would that be real? Then you have two ways of 'shortening a journey.

A Time dilation & Lorentz contraction when accelerating
A Lorentz contraction only when 'coasting', moving uniformly.

Alternatively no Lorentz contraction at all as soon as you start 'coasting', no matter what velocity you got from your former acceleration.

Or defining only a 'time dilation' as being real.

Pick your choice :)
==

I'm open for suggestions :)
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 02:47:27 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 #169 on: 02/02/2011 22:32:08 »
Another interesting point. If that reasoning was true, then the 'aging' one experience inside that ship is a relation to gravity, not speed per se.

I kind'a like that idea actually :)
==

It fits very nicely with my question what the ultimate rest frame for matter is.
I suggested that it was infalling, into a black hole, if anyone remember.
That means, matter will only be 'at rest' at 'c', aka 'infinite gravity'

And then we have several statements coming together.

'Times arrow' becomes a function of gravity.
And 'speed/velocity' doesn't exist, neither does 'distance' as such.
Only gravity have a reality of its own.

I really need to think about this, it's very weird though :)
==

But to get back to my first question, would my heartbeats differ as compared to that clock?
Nope, I don't expect them too myself, so the 'even durations' I was thinking of should be the same? Which gives me a headache :)
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 22:49:22 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 #170 on: 02/02/2011 22:45:41 »
I thought I saw something recently about atomic clocks that are sufficiently stable to demonstrate the effects of gravity on time by comparing the results from two stationalry clocks in different graviational fields. I don't seem to be able to find it again, so maybe I imagined it.
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 #171 on: 02/02/2011 22:51:35 »
No, I seen some experiments sensitive enough to feel if you moved a clock down on the floor relative leaving its twin on the table recently on the net too. Probably have them somewhere?

Nevermind :)
We seen it both at least ::))
"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 #172 on: 02/02/2011 23:03:53 »
Using cycles for defining a time dilation becomes weirder still if we consider that we all consist of 'matter waves'. Then the question becomes if the distance to the gravity well will have an importance for the 'time dilation'

I don't think it have myself? what should define it is the gravitational metric/potential and that one will differ slightly with the distance, although how much?
"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 #173 on: 02/02/2011 23:15:30 »
And that one neatly solves what a 'time dilation' is.

A 'time dilation' if so, should be a result of gravity acting on matter/waves, compressing them locally. But what causes the 'time dilation' is then not the speed, but the gravity? Still, we need the 'speed' to define a 'gravity' to the space-ship.

And then it should only be accelerating that does it, which should make Lorentz contraction, if still existing with engines of, an illusion :)

Ahhh ::))

Hmmm.

Or, which seems more reasonable to me, considering muons, leave Lorentz contraction as being just as real as a time dilation. Which then should be noticeable as you would see a different, much stronger 'time dilation' for a accelerating object than for a 'coasting', if so. But both would present a 'time dilation' to you, as the contraction is equivalent to a time dilation.

How about lightening up that ship one second, as measured from Earth, into 99.99999% of light speed? Then turn of the engine? What would that be equivalent to time-dilation wise? Would doing ten seconds at ??.???? of light speed give the exact same 'time dilation'.

would I age 'slowest' if I kept a constant acceleration/deceleration as compared to accelerating then coasting decelerating?

I don't know?
But it's a nice idea.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2011 23:47:56 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 #174 on: 02/02/2011 23:19:09 »
No, I seen some experiments sensitive enough to feel if you moved a clock down on the floor relative leaving its twin on the table recently on the net too. Probably have them somewhere?

Nevermind :)
We seen it both at least ::))

Yes! Thanks, that was it! What's nice about that one is that it's a very simple and static configuration. No aeroplanes or satellites involved, no twins (unless we say the clocks are twins), and no trips around the Universe. The lack of variables minimizes any opportunity for general obfuscation and wavy arm explanations.

If time is an illusion, I wonder how we might explain the results of that experiment?



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 #175 on: 02/02/2011 23:34:28 »
Time is a illusion Geezer :)

Gravity isn't.
If you was the clock.

Times arrow, aka the 'durations' is the same to you on the floor as on the table, but when looked at from another 'frame', like your wife standing beside you, she will see you age 'slower' the closer you come to the gravity source. I changed my discussion above a little, to fit as I was introducing two frames without thinking of it, so it was slightly wrong, but I actually think it works all the same.

So 'times arrow' becomes an expression of gravity, but the 'durations' of them, although seen to be changing from outside your own 'room time geometry' will to you inside it always be the same.

So sweet :)
And no math..
"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 #176 on: 02/02/2011 23:56:11 »
Then maybe assigning some sort of weird 'density' to Space isn't that bad an idea?
After all, we see it in 'inertia', don't we?
"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 #177 on: 02/02/2011 23:59:06 »
Yes, time (spacetime?) is being influenced by gravity, but isn't it time that controls the motion of the "pendulums" in our atomic clocks, as well as every other process in that locality? Just because it doesn't have a constant effect, that does not mean it's an illusion - in that respect it is a bit like air pressure.

Of course, the clocks don't know anything different. How could they? They are measuring time at their locations.
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 #178 on: 03/02/2011 00:12:21 »
:)

According to me heh :)
Time should be gravity. I've felt something similar a long time, but not being able to formulate it. Bills and yours comments gave me the right 'push' to see how I could put it together.

'Speed' exists of course, as well as 'distance', and 'time' too. It's on that conceptual plane speed and distance disappear to give place for gravity, as their common nominator.

I've had so much trouble with understanding frames of reference Geezer :)
But now it feels as if I have an idea of what they are.
Ahh, maybe ::))
"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 #179 on: 03/02/2011 00:30:03 »
Were your arms waving when you said that?  [;D]

Look! I'm waving mine too.
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 #180 on: 03/02/2011 00:31:15 »
It's a very weird universe. It exist in two simultaneous frames as I see it.

One is the one we know of personally. In that one you will have a 'times arrow' that always have the same duration, not caring what you do. In it you will find 'distance'. Even if contracting with your speed, distance won't disappear. And distance combined with your 'durations' will present you with 'speed/velocity'.

Then we come to the fact that your 'room time geometry' change. That's primary caused by the Lorentz contraction. The simplest solution there is to define it as an 'illusion' as we have defined 'time dilations' as being a purely local result of gravity.

If that is wrong the universe becomes more complicated as your 'room time geometry' then will have to include a whole SpaceTime, one unique for each participant/object existing.

So I have to admit that I would prefer Lorentz contraction to be a illusion, as that simplifies my present understanding.

Because I imagine that I now can define a time dilation as being a local effect, 'invincible' for those inside that frame, but getting 'time-dilated' according to those watching, being at rest relative it.

And it delivers some weird facts, if it is true? According to my understanding a 'time-dilation' then only can exist under your acceleration, as soon as you close those engines and start to coast it 'stops'.

And the 'time dilation' is not a result of speed if so, it's a result of gravity. There are more things to it but I need to see if it makes sense first :)
==

And , I don't know if I'm waving yet :)
Possibly, we'll have to see.

But it makes sense so far
Ah, maybe :)

==

Anyway, the other frame of reality is the conceptual.

There we have several possibilities. I said that making Lorentz contraction a illusion would simplify it, and that's true. but on the conceptual plane I'm not that sure. If I treat it as a real effect I will have the possibility of questioning 'distance'. I really need to question some of my ideas, and see if they will work without Lorentz contraction being real.

Awh, but this is still very cool to me.
Let's hope I remember it tomorrow :)
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 00:51:02 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 #181 on: 03/02/2011 00:44:50 »

is to define it as an 'illusion' as we have defined 'time dilations' as being a purely local result of gravity.


You lost me there. How does that prove time is an illusion? Gravity influences matter. I hope you're not going to tell me matter is an illusion too.

Also, if time can be dilated (QED) how can time be 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 #182 on: 03/02/2011 01:02:33 »
Time is 'durations'. And those we define using clocks. When in the same 'frame of reference' we will find our clocks to correlate, making us happy. and me finding it hard to explain why I'm always so late :)

The thing with gravity goes back to how to define a 'time-dilation'. If it only exist when accelerating then it can't be the speed, do you agree? If it is a effect of your engines you need to ask yourself what they did? They 'twisted' your 'room time geometry'. And how did they do that?

Gravity.

If it is so, and it's my proposal, for now, that it might be so, then 'times arrow' is a result of gravity, nothing else. 'Energy', as I see it, is a description of relations coming together, so that one I ignore for now.

No, matter, as well as all the other stuff like time, is 'real' to us, just like 'forces'. It's more like there is two realities, the conceptual and the one where I 'exist' physically.
==

If you look at how I discussed that photon wander, from the light-bulb to your eye, in that space-ship, getting blue-shifted, compressed and of a higher frequency then you will see that I equalized that with falling into a gravity-well. To me that is in fact absolutely equivalent, transforming speed into gravity. And gravity is also what keeps SpaceTime together, inertia being its expression locally and 'instantly' everywhere.
==

Matter is what 'creates' SpaceTime. I'm not sure it 'creates' gravity though, for the moment I prefer to look at it as it is what defines the 'gravity' we see rather. But that is just my gut talking :) And my need to find something from where it comes together.

You can look at it several ways. You can define SpaceTime as something created out of matter, gravity being its expression. Or you can define Gravity like that 'black hole' does. As a infinite source hiding inside what we call 'SpaceTime', controlled and regulated by matter. As I said, I'm weird ::))
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 01:19:17 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 #183 on: 03/02/2011 01:42:08 »
I agree that gravity distorts spacetime. But if we move our clock to a relatively undistorted region of spacetime, guess what? It will still measure time in that locality.

That's why I like the static case.

I don't think we can use the term "durations" either, as a duration must imply an amount of time.

It's probably a flawed model, but I tend to think of spacetime in a sort of 3-D sense that has more than three dimensions! Matter distorts all of those dimensions (including time). Anything and everything must obey the laws that spacetime imposes at a particular location.

It gets a lot more complicated when things are dynamic, but if we can't figure out the (relatively) static case, who cares  [;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 #184 on: 03/02/2011 01:45:20 »
Thinking of the 'energy' of that photon. I called it a relation, and it is. What gives it its blue-shift Geezer? As it wanders down that 'gravity well', meeting your eye?

What is that 'blue-shift'? We call it 'energy' don't we :)
So, is that true? Can it do more work when hitting your eye than it could leaving its 'source'? Yep, it can. If so, where did it gain that 'energy'?

It did nothing more than to fall. From its own perspective it has done no 'work'. It's only as it 'interacts' it do any work. So, was work done on it? By what?

Gravity?

No, if that was true we would first of all speak of it as 'interacting' without annihilating. Secondly we know that when a photon leaves a gravitational 'field' it will adapt its energy to what it meets. Thirdly it's the exact same as so called 'potential energy'. You can have a multitude of simultaneous 'potential energies' defined by what object(s) you may interact with, simultaneously.

But there is also this truth. Although the photon may be seen as being a defined 'energy quanta', unchanging. And even though gravity does not 'interact' with it, as that would destroy all definitions we have of a photons interaction, it still delivers a bigger 'punch' the closer you are to a gravity well. And that 'punch' is also real 'work' being delivered.

So what is 'gravity', and what is 'energy'.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 01:53:55 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 #185 on: 03/02/2011 01:47:03 »
Yes, there is nowhere without gravity. But then we have 'energy'. Matter for example store an awful lot of energy.
==

Durations is just my word for regular temporal measurements.

You can make a duration by using a clock. Or your heartbeats, or anything you find to be of a regular rhythm/oscillation. It states that there is a past, a present, and a future. As for it's 'length' that's an arbitrary definition. but 'durations' exist, and as they create that causality chain, we get our 'arrow of time'. They will always be the same inside my own 'frame of reference', no matter what length I define them to have. That is, my wristwatch against my heartbeats will always agree, no matter what frame I'm in measuring.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 02:02:41 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 #186 on: 03/02/2011 01:59:16 »
Yes, but  [:D]

try to take it back to basics.

If matter can distort space, why can't it distort time (which is, after all, part of spacetime)?

Space gets distorted, and so does time. Unless we assume that there is some sort of master clock that controls all time, why would we be surprised to learn that clocks in different locations in spacetime do not agree with each other?
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 #187 on: 03/02/2011 02:08:47 »
It distort SpaceTime. The question is just if the distortion is real when it comes to Lorentz contraction, or if it is a geometrical twist? I think it's real, which complicates things for me.

The distortion is made through gravity as I see it. We use 'energy' for creating that gravity. I can't think of any other way creating that 'distortion'. Can you give me another way of doing it?
"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 #188 on: 03/02/2011 02:56:40 »
Well, don't take it too seriously. I can see some, very few flaws, with my proposal already :) Like I could be constantly accelerating at one G which would bring me up to near light speed in a year or so :)

Ahem :)

How the he* would having the gravity equivalent to Earth deliver me a 'time dilation' good enough to see the universe 'die'? I have to admit that I was happier before realizing this ::)) So gravity isn't the answer, maybe, and neither is the the way our photon blue-shifts. even though you could use it as an example of all 'waves' moving faster relative some other frame, at rest relative you. :)

So ok, it has to be the whole room time geometry that get twisted, and what does it is 'energy', and speed. and if so? My arguments about acceleration being the only thing creating a time-dilation have to be wrong, you must get it both ways, 'coasting' as well as accelerating.

so yeah Geezer, count it as qualified hand waving :)
==

If there was a way to prove that the 'potential energy' got stored in some manner it might be a different matter. But as far as I know, even though we use the expression, there is no atoms in that spaceship 'jiggling' more due to any stored 'potential energy', due to its speed relative some origin (Earth).

So what exactly creates the 'time-dilation'?
And now I'm far from what we discussed before, our 'arrow of time'.

But I'm stuck here, any takers?
The room time geometry gets 'twisted' by what?
Speed, gravity,'energy'?

How, and where is it 'stored', does it need to be 'stored'?
If it doesn't, and a plank sized man made black hole can be made.
Containing a infinite 'gravity', what guarantees it evaporating?
Shouldn't that center see our universe 'die' first?

Ahh, better stop this :)




« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 05:49:48 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 #189 on: 03/02/2011 04:01:05 »
Okay, some points.

One gravity, constantly accelerating, will not be equivalent to the same amount of time passed on Earth. That's a simple one.

So, what distort the room time geometry?

If it is motion solely, then 'coasting' is good enough.
If uniform motion is good enough, and there exist no gold standard for what speed that might be in black box. then any uniform motion is equivalently 'time dilated'.

The way around that is to introduce a new 'frame of reference' relative your 'black box'

Using that you can define a speed. but you can't define who is speeding relative who. but that's not really true, you can always use relativistic effects to see if it is you or the other object, or can you?

You should be able to use CMB (cosmic microwave background) for it at least?

So let's assume that you can define a speed to your 'coasting' relative the CMB, that makes it as real as it can be, relative the universe, am I right?

But I'm coasting? I'm not expending any energy so I can't say that the time dilation is a effect of me expending energy?

And I have no gravitational forces acting on me. A 'free fall' and me coasting is the same as I understands it, no matter what velocity I measure relative something else. Can you prove that wrong?

No gravity, no energy, but a time dilation?

What have I left, 'speed' yes, but only under the definition that I have found a way of proving it relative the universe.

So is time dilation a relation of 'positional aberrations' only. How does the universe know my 'speed' or that I 'distort' its 'room time geometry'?

You can use light to prove it, and we say that the muons also proves it. But what creates it?

==

Also, if you accept the muon example you will find that it is in a 'free fall' too, no accelerating forces acting on it, although it will 'accelerate', you can put a scale under its metaphorical feet to check if there is some 'gravitational effect' and you won't find one. So even though it relative the ground is gaining 'energy' it will, relative something 'coasting' beside it, being at rest relative it (same frame of reference) have gained nothing at all...

Getting tired here.
Miss spellings and stuff.

Anyway, the muon is just following a geodesic, even if  in a rather big 'dip' (One Gravity deep)equivalent according to relativity to any other geodesic.

And yep, I know the statement that being on Earth is the equivalence to one gravity constantly accelerating. That is true, if you define it in a black box, ignoring tidal forces. But the time dilation created will differ as observed from another frame of reference, and what phreaks me out is how it comes to be..
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 04:56:06 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 #190 on: 03/02/2011 04:11:33 »
Ah, but gravity is not constantly accelerating. The acceleration varies, and that variation produces the variation in time.
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 #191 on: 03/02/2011 04:19:04 »
Geezer, in this case gravity has nothing to do with it :)
And don't I hate that :)
"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 #192 on: 03/02/2011 05:00:06 »
Which case? I'm still on about the two clocks that are obviously influenced be gravity.

You'll need to slow down if you want me to keep up with you.
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 #193 on: 03/02/2011 05:03:08 »
Yeah, ah, what clocks?

:)
"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 #194 on: 03/02/2011 05:47:42 »
The really weird thing is that according to this we're all time dilated. there is no way any 'inertial frame' can be defined to a certain speed. We don't have any zero speed in the universe. so we must all contain some 'time dilation'.

That I used the CBR is possibly legal though. I'm not sure there? Probably not, I will have to look that up tomorrow :)

I hope to find some really enlightening answers here tomorrow. And by the next few days we will have us a TOE, and a big one too.

I already have two btw
But one can never get enough of them, they say?

Or can there only be one?
"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 #195 on: 03/02/2011 11:08:12 »
I've lost track here of what the conversation is about any more.

*

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 #196 on: 03/02/2011 17:02:23 »
It's just a matter of time QC :)
Soon we will all get it.
==

And when it comes to CMBR

"Since its discovery in 1965, the radiation has been carefully studied and found to be a perfect blackbody as expected from theory. Since, this radiation represents fossil radiation from the initial big bang, any additional motion of Earth around the Sun, the Sun around the galactic center, and the galaxy  through space should be reflected in a slight asymmetry in the background radiation. The net motion of Earth in some specific direction should be reflected by a slight Doppler shift of the background radiation coming from that direction toward shorter wavelengths."

So maybe it would work.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 17:05:40 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 #197 on: 03/02/2011 17:21:51 »
The thing irritating me is that I can explain it in form of light, but I can't get my head around what actually creates it. And to me it's also close to all other ideas we have, and cherish :)

Like 'potential energy' and 'energy'.

So do anyone know what creates it, and don't give me 'light clocks'. I have enough light clocks to dress a castle :) and the math may work but it does not define what creates it. The closest I've come I think is my 'positional aberrations' and why that should create it? I don't really know. Wavelengths we already tested in the thread, and that is not sufficient, as I could see? Gravity alone seems not the sole answer, although my own opinion still leans toward it as a answer in some weird way.

'Energy'? Well, let's define 'energy'. what the he* are we talking about there? Light quanta? Is that 'pure energy'? I don't see it that way. 'Energy' is what we use for describing 'work gained' and it comes in different amounts depending on its relations, as we can see when it comes to blue/red-shift. So 'energy' have to be a description of a relation, nothing more. Just as 'potential energy' is.

So what defines those two, from 'potential' to 'real'. Their interactions, do you agree? Then we come back to a 'time-dilation' and the question of time. What defines a time-dilation?
==

One of the really big points I expect that we can make already is that if we assign 'times arrow' to 'oscillations' then those should be apparent in our descriptions of that spaceship relative something being at rest. We use light in simplified description for what time consists of when describing a 'time dilation' but when looking at it as 'matter waves' they still seem to fall short of the real dilation? Or, can you show me the oscillations?

Let's make another experiment.

We will use a mirror pair, or anything with a defined amount of 'oscillations' mounted inside that ship. assume now that 'times arrow' have to have a direct influence on those oscillations. It should, shouldn't it?

So the 'light-corn' have a 'bumping frequency' of ah, ten per second at earth. As we start to move that oscillation must slow, as observed form Earth. Every discrepancy in the twins age relative each other, slowing as the ships speed accumulates, need to be answered by those oscillations to a equal degree, as observed from Earth. Let us assume that this is correct.

So would 'positional aberrations' be the correct nomenclature for it? Not really, we can get the same effect one meter from Earth than one million miles from it. So that is not correct either. So what does it leave us with?

Its speed relative Earth it seems. That gives us a universe where it will be very important to differ between whose speed is relative who. It will not be enough to say that A:s uniform speed relative B is equivalent to B:s speed relative A. From the viewpoint of a 'time dilation' they must differ, do you agree? If they don't differ both will have to be equally 'time dilated' which definitely would make time something very strange, with a very weird 'arrow' at least.

But I wasn't satisfied with those 'waves' was I :) That was when I tried to use them relative the 'gravity well' created by an acceleration. If you look at the balance there the gravity seems very weak and 'out of bonds' compared to the 'time dilation' possible by a constant acceleration.

So the waves created for a 'time dilation' according to that idea, inside the ship, looked at from the viewpoint of a photons blue-shift inside, is not sufficient it seems. But the 'time dilation' still exist. And how did I 'prove it'? By comparing frames, Earth looking at that bouncing light-corn, mounted inside the ship. And that ship could be one meter from Earth, as long as it held the same speed relative Earth.

That one is very weird in fact. Assume that photons blue-shift inside that ship relative you. Then define it as you age slower, as compared to those photons. But you too can be seen as composed of 'matter waves'. And those waves should should follow the same pattern as any other 'wave'? which then should mean that your waves will red-shift relative the photon, as long as it is further from the gravity-well, but then blue-shift as soon as it passed you. So your 'aging' becomes a positional effect only, But no less 'real' because of that.

so yeah, 'relations'
==

Another thing worth noting here. When we are talking about a gravitational time-dilation we can illustrate the gravity by imagining a photon blue-shifting. What that means is the the photons ah, 'clock', relative us on Earth 'ticks faster'. As it 'ticks faster' per 'duration', let's say 20 oscillations per second instead of 10/second it, according to us, will have to age faster, alternatively defining ourselves as 'aging slower'. depending on how you want to look at it.

So, am I right after all?
Gravity is time?

But what the he* would speed be if so?

(Better point out one thing here, I'm using the photon as waves in that example, and then referring to the frequency as equivalent to a 'time-dilation'. But I do not think a photon 'age', and I doubt I ever will. It's just a thought experiment.)
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 19:13:06 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 #198 on: 03/02/2011 18:31:32 »
So, we are getting closer possibly, but, what is it? I would like to describe it as a relation, as my universe seems to be created by, and populated by, 'relations' from 'energy' to 'time'. But the problem with that is how to explain how the interactive relation between Earth and that ship creates a real difference in age, in those twins?

As Geezer said, 'motion is time'. But exactly how is it 'time'?

Inside that ship I would assume everything to have a slight 'time dilation' as created by the constant acceleration, equivalent to a 'gravity', and as seen from the photons 'blue-shift' observed by the participants inside.

But that 'time-shift' is not enough to explain what Earth will see in form of the 'bouncing/oscillation' increase inside that ship. If we satisfied us with defining it as a geometrical aberration, made by the speed relative us then we might ignore it as a illusion. But according to relativity it isn't, it's real.

So, speed makes 'time slow' relative the universe, but only observable when comparing frames. If this is correct the universe must have a simple way of differing what frame is what, and whose time is which. How does it do it?

I define one unchanging frame of 'time', being your own, which will give you an exact same expiration date, no matter what anyone else will tell you about your appearant 'age' relative something else. Is that one wrong then? No, I'm sure of that one, it have to be true.
==

How about this then?

To make the universe able to differ those frames it need to have a 'gold standard' of 'time'. What about it, could you use my idea of those personal 'unchangeable expiration dates' as a such? That one is nice, isn't it? :)

(Not the cosmic microwave background for this. That one was for our benefit only)
====

But how could it 'use' it, if that one would be a possibility?

That must have to do with how we define it? It's like a puzzle in where you can lay the pieces different ways, they will connect and give you a picture, but there will always be another way to lay it, no way being the 'single truth' as I suspect. But I expect some ways to describe it better, hopefully giving us a clearer idea.

As far as I can see?

It's like assuming 'energy' to be 'something' by itself. Well, yeah, to me it is a sum of its relations? And some things, however useful they may be mathematically, do not 'exist' to me. Like 'potential energy', you might say that to me 'potential energy' is a description trusting in the existence of a arrow, as it, to become true, will have to interact before 'existing'. I differ between interactions and possibilities. A possibility is to me the idea of something happening in a arrow of time. A interaction is a 'event', passed and proven by our arrow to 'exist'. The past contains all what's necessary to build what you call your present. And to me the future is only expectations, built on those past interactions that we've observed to be true (existent), and then statistics.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2011 20:05:17 by yor_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 #199 on: 03/02/2011 19:38:45 »
Motion is speed.Quantity of motion is time. [8D]