[QuantumClue]

Time is in three parts:  Future-which never arrives and exists only in ones' imagination.  Present-which exists only for an infinitesimal split second and Past which goes on forever in ones' memory but never returns except as mistakes which we make and are inclined to repeat.  Thanks for comments.  Joe L. Ogan

This is wrong. Time does not have a description of past, present and future. These objects do not exist within relativity and quantum theory.

[QuantumClue]

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"  []

This is also wrong. This is a Newtonian definition of time. Time does not equal motion.

[QuantumClue]

Moving cannot be without time.

Since time is quantized in quantum mechanics, and since time has no flow in relativity, this is not true.

[Geezer]

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"  []

This is also wrong. This is a Newtonian definition of time. Time does not equal motion.

Time is measured in terms of motion. Just because it's Newtonian, it does not mean it's "wrong".

Also, unless you are only trying to start an argument, if you believe something is wrong, it would be nice if you provided an explanation for why you think it's wrong.

Can you explain how you are able to measure time without motion?

[QuantumClue]

Suppose that the Universe consisted of only a single electron, would time exist? The quick answer would be no because nothing is moving with respect to anything else.That is not entirely true and I will explain if anyone asks. Now suppose we insert another electron, that is in motion WRT the other electron, into the Universe. Now there are two electric fields in our hypothetical Universe and they are changing with WRT each other. Time is any change WRT something else.

This is probably the best explanation I've heard so far. However, just because we have more than one moving object in our universe does not mean that clocks necesserily tick.

Explaining why is a little harder to explain. Time evolution, like you would find in the Schrodinger equation (you could even look at the writeup recently which has a small part on the evolution equation) is a type of diffeomorphism. Time constraints in a classical Hamiltonian will eventually find the Schrodinger Equation effectively having no time description.

This is called the Wheeler de Witt equation, and its at the heart of quantum theory and General Relativity.

[QuantumClue]

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"  []

This is also wrong. This is a Newtonian definition of time. Time does not equal motion.

Time is measured in terms of motion. Just because it's Newtonian, it does not mean it's "wrong".

Also, unless you are only trying to start an argument, if you believe something is wrong, it would be nice if you provided an explanation for why you think it's wrong.

Can you explain how you are able to measure time without motion?

Oh it is wrong. Motion does not equate to time. In general relativity motion ceases to exist, we have what are called pure gravity models. If the universe was an object, internal energies ceases to move due to the Wheeler de Witt equation.

[Geezer]

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"  []

This is also wrong. This is a Newtonian definition of time. Time does not equal motion.

Time is measured in terms of motion. Just because it's Newtonian, it does not mean it's "wrong".

Also, unless you are only trying to start an argument, if you believe something is wrong, it would be nice if you provided an explanation for why you think it's wrong.

Can you explain how you are able to measure time without motion?

Oh it is wrong. Motion does not equate to time. In general relativity motion ceases to exist, we have what are called pure gravity models. If the universe was an object, internal energies ceases to move due to the Wheeler de Witt equation.

That does not answer my question. How do you measure time?

[QuantumClue]

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"  []

This is also wrong. This is a Newtonian definition of time. Time does not equal motion.

Time is measured in terms of motion. Just because it's Newtonian, it does not mean it's "wrong".

Also, unless you are only trying to start an argument, if you believe something is wrong, it would be nice if you provided an explanation for why you think it's wrong.

Can you explain how you are able to measure time without motion?

Oh it is wrong. Motion does not equate to time. In general relativity motion ceases to exist, we have what are called pure gravity models. If the universe was an object, internal energies ceases to move due to the Wheeler de Witt equation.

That does not answer my question. How do you measure time?

We are not sure you can in General Relativity. Matter fields vanish, and what is left is an energy field which does not change at all.

In quantum theory, it looks like an approach to this is to measure motion as static frames of tiny little moments called the Planck Time. In theory, time does not have flow, but is a succession of tiny beginnings and ends, each existing for the smallest frame of time possible, and so does not contain a motion as such, not a continuous one any way.

[Geezer]

Propagation of my time definition:
   "Time is quantity of motion"  []

This is also wrong. This is a Newtonian definition of time. Time does not equal motion.

Time is measured in terms of motion. Just because it's Newtonian, it does not mean it's "wrong".

Also, unless you are only trying to start an argument, if you believe something is wrong, it would be nice if you provided an explanation for why you think it's wrong.

Can you explain how you are able to measure time without motion?

Oh it is wrong. Motion does not equate to time. In general relativity motion ceases to exist, we have what are called pure gravity models. If the universe was an object, internal energies ceases to move due to the Wheeler de Witt equation.

That does not answer my question. How do you measure time?

We are not sure you can in General Relativity. Matter fields vanish, and what is left is an energy field which does not change at all.

In quantum theory, it looks like an approach to this is to measure motion as static frames of tiny little moments called the Planck Time. In theory, time does not have flow, but is a succession of tiny beginnings and ends, each existing for the smallest frame of time possible, and so does not contain a motion as such, not a continuous one any way.

Yes, but how do you measure time without motion?

[QuantumClue]

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.

[Geezer]

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.

How can you say it's wrong to use motion to measure time when you apparently have no idea how to meausure it?

[QuantumClue]

I say it's wrong, as in it being a wrong approach. I say wrong approach, because any other approach at the moment would not fit the requirements of the theory.

Of course, it may turn out we no longer will require the classical constraints of the theory on time evolution. It may turn out that quantum theory develops an understanding of what we experience, and the quite obvious contradictory statements of General Relativity.

[Geezer]

Of course, it may turn out we no longer will require the classical constraints of the theory on time evolution.

Oh! So now you are saying that we are still constrained by the classical theory. You were only speculating that the macroscopic theory of time may have to change because it is inconsistent with the quantum view.

So, there was nothing wrong with Simplified's statement after all.

[QuantumClue]

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.

[Geezer]

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.

Yes, but that's all a big bum steer, so let's try to stick to the question at hand.

Other than repeatedly insisting it is wrong, you have failed to demonstrate that there is anything wrong with the statement "Time is a function of motion." You have even said that we are constrained by the classical theory of time.

You can't simply throw out a theory that works perfectly well and fail to replace it with anything! Clearly, you don't know much about how real science works, because if we did that every time we found an inconsistency, science would be nothing but chaos.

What I think you should be saying is that there is an apparent inconsistency between the quantum views and the macroscopic views. That does not mean that any view is wrong. It just means that we have not yet resolved the inconsistencies. (BTW, it's quite possible we never will.)

Somebody might come along with a great theory next week that stands both the macroscopic views and the quantum views on their heads, but even if they do, we'll continue to use the old models for a considerable time before we discard them entirely.

[QuantumClue]

Yes, ok Geezer, I've not explained myself. So all of this:

We are not sure you can in General Relativity. Matter fields vanish, and what is left is an energy field which does not change at all. This is the Wheeler de Witt equation.

In quantum theory, it looks like an approach to this is to measure motion as static frames of tiny little moments called the Planck Time. In theory, time does not have flow, but is a succession of tiny beginnings and ends, each existing for the smallest frame of time possible, and so does not contain a motion as such, not a continuous one any way.

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.

...Was for nothing at all then? Sheesh.
 

[QuantumClue]

I can provide references if that would be more illuminating?

[QuantumClue]

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.

 http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1

These are all the references one needs.

[Geezer]

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.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2009.1

These are all the references one needs.

I'm disappointed you are not able to explain this for yourself. You seemed so adamant in your assertions.

Do any of them explain how your watch, or the clock in your PC measure time without measuring motion?

[QuantumClue]

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.