0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
That's the stubborn illusion of reality Einstein often talked about. Past and future seem to be stubbornly persistent illusions - motion is measured with our equations, but the truth and crux of the matter is that a unified approach will not use the classical postulations of equations of motion. They will adhere to support the framework of relativity.
Of course, it may turn out we no longer will require the classical constraints of the theory on time evolution.
No it is wrong. My last post is stating if theory was wrong.That is like saying a hypothetical Tom would be right also, when he states that electrons don't exist as a wave function round the nuclei of atoms... because there is that chance theory is wrong. Science doesn't operate like that, usually we say interpretations that don't fit theory are wrong, not the other way around until experimentation proves otherwise.
There are a great array of papers on time here. Some of them touch on the topic that time ceases to exist where movement is involved, others are wholey dedicated to the topic. There is also a paper on the topic of no flow existing in time, which leads to the conclusions of a quantized time....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGINThese are all the references one needs.
A few of the papers, for the last time Geezer, explain that moving clocks cease to exist - that is quantum clocks, objects moving relative to other things.
Rats! I thought you were serious about the "last time".No, you listen to what I'm saying, and at least attempt to answer my original question which was, "How do you measure time without motion?" Despite the fact that you keep trying to evade the issue, it's not really a trick question.
Quote from: Geezer on 19/01/2011 00:37:44Rats! I thought you were serious about the "last time".No, you listen to what I'm saying, and at least attempt to answer my original question which was, "How do you measure time without motion?" Despite the fact that you keep trying to evade the issue, it's not really a trick question. I said you can't in GR. That is the answer, that is my answer, and that is truth. Why have you made me say this over three times now to you? THAT is the answer. There is no if's, no but's... You cannot measure time with motion in relativity, because both cease to exist in GR. This truely is the last time.
QC Julian Barbour makes some sense to me Great minds think alike. I like his views and he is quite poetic presenting them. "the quantum universe is static. Nothing happens; there is being but no becoming. The flow of time and motion are illusions." comes close to how I see it too. the difference possibly being that I define it as 'emergences', and as such having a 'reality' by its own for each 'scale' defined , as we look at it.Ahem A sweet Pdf.Thnx.
something I tried explaining to Geezer but failed miserably.
Quote from: QuantumClue on 30/01/2011 09:27:42something I tried explaining to Geezer but failed miserably.QC, kindly point me to the bit where you tried to explain. I must have missed it.
Now QC, some of it I agree with, other not so much. I know that QM want everything to become 'quanta' of some sort. And if we look above Plank-scale it seems to work. So redefining it I would say that above Plank scale we should be able too see 'quanta'. Does that mean that we have defined the 'smallest things'? Well, inside SpaceTime we might have done so. But then we come to what creates a SpaceTime. And there we seem to have a lot of 'stuff' that I see as being under Plank scale. So, would SpaceTime exist without that other 'stuff'? I don't think so. Can we say that those too are 'quanta'? Nope.
QC tried to show time definition.We did not see result.[8D]
Yeah, without 'times arrow' neither flow nor 'discrete events' make sense. Both need the arrow to exist. Without it you just might get your 'be' though, but even so there is needed to be 'something' creating our arrow. And that's why I find those constants so interesting.
QC, you still have no explained how its possible to measure time without motion. Or are you saying time does not exist?
Quote from: simplified on 31/01/2011 16:44:52QC tried to show time definition.We did not see result.[8D]The definition of time... In a model where time does not exist, like relativity, how can you define such a thing? You can only define it using our outdated concepts, such as flows and enrtopy and movements. That is where theory breaks down, and no longer yields us truthful results.Also, how do you define something which can never be an absolute?
Quote from: QuantumClue on 31/01/2011 16:55:54Quote from: simplified on 31/01/2011 16:44:52QC tried to show time definition.We did not see result.[8D]The definition of time... In a model where time does not exist, like relativity, how can you define such a thing? You can only define it using our outdated concepts, such as flows and enrtopy and movements. That is where theory breaks down, and no longer yields us truthful results.Also, how do you define something which can never be an absolute?Show the history without quantity of Earth motion.Show calculations of changings without quantity of motion.
Quote from: Geezer on 31/01/2011 17:27:33QC, you still have no explained how its possible to measure time without motion. Or are you saying time does not exist?Geezer, I haven't followed all of your discussion, but as I see it. Can there be any 'events' taking place without a 'arrow of time'? I don't think so myself, all change need a duration, and to get a duration some sort of 'arrow' should be involved. So if there is something existing without this arrow there need to be another principle defining it. If we look at 'time' from 'motion' then maybe you might assume that just as motion can take all types of direction, maybe 'times arrow' can do the same?If it could, yeah I know, this is not 'main stream' But if it could, would it be possible to find 'states' where that arrow more or less took out itself? And if there could be something like that, a little like particles and anti particles annihilating each other, what would that look as to us? A motion? Or no motion at all? A arrow existing, or no arrow at all?
*There we differ QC To me a arrow either is 'there' or it isn't. and what seems to make it possible for us are e.g the constants, like the 'Plank scale' for example. There are a lot of interesting constants and I hope we will find more. To me they seem to stake out the 'borders' for SpaceTime, it's just a question of finding the right ones defining how the 'arrow' can work.And I differ between 'Time' as a concept and the 'arrow of time' myself. 'Time' as such need no specific arrow, and to us it will seem as unchanging, but any universe experiencing events will need arrow(s) to be defined.So yes, to me 'times arrow' is more than just psychological. In relativity you have only one unchanging duration. Your expiration date will be the same no matter what you do, so to speak. You can live next to black hole or on Earth, traveling almost at lights speed or having a prolonged beach party, your clock will still measure the same amount of heartbeats in your 'frame of reference'. That someone else can give you another 'time definition' won't matter for this.