[QuantumClue]

You edited your message since my most recent with:

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

I have explained myself Geezer. It is you who is refusing to listen.

[QuantumClue]

I've posted the wrong link, bare with me: http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1

[QuantumClue]

What is ultimately wrong in physics, is the topic url I posted before, its been edited. The url is now on the nature of time.

[Geezer]

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.

Yes, but who's talking about quantum clocks? You didn't limit your loud assertion to the time measured by quantum clocks. All you said was that time is not a function of motion. Not only that, but you don't seem to be able to provide any ideas about how to measure time, other than say that we can't.

When you say "for the last time", can I take it that you are giving up rather than simply admitting you made a sweeping statement when you could have agreed that a qualified statement might have been a lot more appropriate? 

[QuantumClue]

Geezer, listen to what I am saying. You cannot assert about motion in GR because moving clocks cease to exist. Why is this part troubling you so?

[Geezer]

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. 

[Geezer]

BTW - we can split this into a new topic if you want.

[QuantumClue]

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. 

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.

[Geezer]

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. 

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.

Oh goody! That means I get the last word.

So what you seem to be suggesting is that there is no such thing as time, so, obviously we can't measure something that doesn't exist. It's a pity you didn't say that in the first place rather than insisting that we were measuring time the wrong way.

[simplified]

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. 

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.

Name your time by other name. []

[yor_on]

Your own time is unchangeable. You can easily check that with your wristwatch against something else near you (heartbeats:). Others 'time' isn't though making them highly unreliable as your 'time pieces'. So when your boss points out that you're too late again, point out back that we left the Newtonian universe 1905. Possibly earlier?

[simplified]

One second is defined quantity of Earth rotation.If atomic clock rests on Earth,then its second coincides with terrestrial second .If atomic clock quickly travels, then it shows wrong quantity of Earth rotation,though shows a right quantity of local motion of  local objects. In my definition a quantity of motion can be different.You should understand  measurement of motion quantity by another motion quantity.

[Bill S]

I'll say one thing for time; it can certainly generate a lot of scientific discussion, philosophical floundering and even p...ing contests, but at the end of the day, I think I'm still with St Augustine: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not."

[yor_on]

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.

[simplified]

Some sense is not definition.  []

[QuantumClue]

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.

He is on the dot - something I tried explaining to Geezer but failed miserably.

[Bill S]

I found Julian Barbour's book heavy going in places, but, apart from a few details, I felt that "Platonia" had much in common with the concept of an infinite cosmos, in which everything "is", and all change is illusion resulting from limited perception.   

[Geezer]

something 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.

[QuantumClue]

something 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.

Are you kidding? I went to witts end last time trying to explain this to you, and you were being infinitely stubborn. I'll find it for you.

[QuantumClue]

Simplified:

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

QC:

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

Geezer

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?

QC: qouted Ron Hughs and said

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.

QC: qouted Geezer

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

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

QC

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

Yes, but how do you measure time without motion?

QC

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

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

QC

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

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.



By this point I was getting quite frustrated. You where being highly pedantic with each reply I gave you, no matter how I summed the posts up to you....




QC

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

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.




Now I simply got angry. How can you say I have not attempted to explain myself despite the several exhanges we have had???



QC

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

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?




Which is an understatement. I have been able to explain myself, and I was more than adamant in my assertions. I quite simply and clearly told you that time does not have a newtonian flow that time is quantized, and general relativity has equations in the field theories where movement finally ceases to exist, due to diffeormorphism constraints on the theory. How this is not explaining myself clearly is beyond me. You were just being difficult, and have been off with me ever since, hence why you banned me for the three days for nothing. I said That I did not regret the thing I said, and you banned me after a sufficient warning. But because I NEVER regretted saying what I said, you decided to get super personal about it. Well there, that's the story in balamory.