The Dimension of Time
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity Researcher: Increase Your Research Productivity with the Leading Web 2.0 Research Portal
Next: Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 10:23 On Dec 21, 6:05 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Dec, 21:05, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 19, 6:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I was contemplating the laws of physics, as one does, and in the > > > course of some basic research on the matter I came across the concept > > > of the "arrow of time", and the statement that whereas one can move in > > > both directions in space, currently we can only move forward in time. > > > > Now I'm not an expert in physics, so perhaps this question may come > > > across as ridiculously simple. But setting aside for one moment human > > > perception and common sense, the question is this: exactly what leads > > > us to conclude that we are constantly moving forward in time? > > > Because it is an observed fact that certain processes (that can be > > characterized by certain thermodynamic properties) go in only one > > direction, and we don't see them go in the other direction. For > > example, a dropped plate shatters and this is a common observation, > > but we never see shards reassemble into a smooth plate.' > > We do see shards reassemble. It happens when the shards become subject > to the combined forces of human hands and glue. And if we had > sufficient machinery and expertise, the plate could be put back to the > exact same state as previous. In that event, how do we distinguish a > plate reassembled by machinery, to a plate reassembled by the reversal > of time? Are the plates not truly one-and-the-same in every measurable > way? Note that in this case the shards do not represent a closed system. There is an external agent involved, or said a different way, the closed system has to include the machinery involved in reassembling a part of the system. The second law of thermodynamics is a statement about processes inside *closed* systems. > > > There is therefore an *observational* imbalance. > > The question is not of what we observe in the world. The question is > of how to explain it. Nothing I'm saying truly contradicts > observation, it just contradicts previous explanations of it. It turns out this is useless in science. Alternative explanations for common phenomena do not represent a new kind of understanding. What happens in science is that if there are two competing explanations, then the task is to isolate where they make *different* predictions about what will be seen in nature under certain circumstances, and then to test which of the predictions better matches experimental measurement. > > > We can then induce > > that there are some kind of laws in nature (like the 2nd law of > > thermodynamics) that says that if a process involves a change in > > certain properties, then it will only run one way in observed time and > > not run the other way. > > But change does not necessarily run one way, as I've just illustrated > with the plate. The machinery required to reassemble the plate by hand > consumes energy, but so would time travel (if indeed it were > possible). See my earlier comment. > > As for the laws of thermodynamics, they can be surmounted if you say > that energy remains constant across space *and time*, Energy conservation IS a statement about being constant in time, not in space. > and indeed on > that reading the laws of thermodynamics *preclude* any "travelling > backwards in time", because to turn the whole universe back to a > previous state would require an input of energy from outside the > universe (which I use to mean "all time and space" as we know it). I don't follow this. If it's constant, then there's no input of energy from outside the universe in either temporal direction. Constant means the SAME, no deposits or withdrawals required. Reversing time just switches deposits and withdrawals, but if there are none in one direction, then there are none in the other direction. > > Also note that this interpretation discards the idea of "parallel > universes". It discards the idea of travel backwards in time, and > travel to the future can only be achieved by slowing down one's own > time. It therefore discards loops in time, and the grandfather > paradox. In fact my theory discards just about every paradox we are > currently wrestling with, and as yet has none of its own. There are no paradoxes in the current theory. There are *teaching examples*, but no paradoxes.
From: Ste on 23 Dec 2009 01:52 On 22 Dec, 13:57, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > But if you prefer a different term, then let me > > > > say "it relies on an understanding of time that > > > > is ever-moving-forward". > > > > We don't see things getting younger. > > > Yes we do. A 40 year old egg turns into a 1 year old > > child. > > No, the egg is formed from a different kind of cell a few hours before > being released for its trip. SO you play games, and waste time. I'm not playing games. I'm illustrating that while we both accept that the egg or whatever has changed physical state, it has not got "older" in any objectively measurable way. Indeed, we measure "age" simply by reference to physical state - something is "old" because it has developed a particular physical state, but then it becomes "young" again as soon as its physical state changes to the "young" state. As such "age" is a measure of physical state, not passage of time. > Goodbye. Good riddance.
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 02:32 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5d986724-dc3e-45aa-a3a0-e2984126e115(a)b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 22 Dec, 13:57, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> > > > But if you prefer a different term, then let me >> > > > say "it relies on an understanding of time that >> > > > is ever-moving-forward". >> >> > > We don't see things getting younger. >> >> > Yes we do. A 40 year old egg turns into a 1 year old >> > child. >> >> No, the egg is formed from a different kind of cell a few hours before >> being released for its trip. SO you play games, and waste time. > > I'm not playing games. I'm illustrating that while we both accept that > the egg or whatever has changed physical state, it has not got "older" > in any objectively measurable way. Indeed, we measure "age" simply by > reference to physical state - something is "old" because it has > developed a particular physical state, but then it becomes "young" > again as soon as its physical state changes to the "young" state. As > such "age" is a measure of physical state, not passage of time. Except, of course, when someone says "I am 21 years old" .. that is indeed a measure of passage of time (21 years). It you use subjective terms like 'old' or 'young', then you get into trouble. Physical doesn't deal with subjective descriptions.
From: Ste on 23 Dec 2009 03:00 On 22 Dec, 15:23, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I was contemplating the laws of physics, as one does, and in the > > > > course of some basic research on the matter I came across the concept > > > > of the "arrow of time", and the statement that whereas one can move in > > > > both directions in space, currently we can only move forward in time. > > > > > Now I'm not an expert in physics, so perhaps this question may come > > > > across as ridiculously simple. But setting aside for one moment human > > > > perception and common sense, the question is this: exactly what leads > > > > us to conclude that we are constantly moving forward in time? > > > > Because it is an observed fact that certain processes (that can be > > > characterized by certain thermodynamic properties) go in only one > > > direction, and we don't see them go in the other direction. For > > > example, a dropped plate shatters and this is a common observation, > > > but we never see shards reassemble into a smooth plate.' > > > We do see shards reassemble. It happens when the shards become subject > > to the combined forces of human hands and glue. And if we had > > sufficient machinery and expertise, the plate could be put back to the > > exact same state as previous. In that event, how do we distinguish a > > plate reassembled by machinery, to a plate reassembled by the reversal > > of time? Are the plates not truly one-and-the-same in every measurable > > way? > > Note that in this case the shards do not represent a closed system. > There is an external agent involved, or said a different way, the > closed system has to include the machinery involved in reassembling a > part of the system. The second law of thermodynamics is a statement > about processes inside *closed* systems. Indeed, but what is your point? You gave an example of where entropy increased (the falling plate), and I gave you another (the plate was put back together again). Where you suggested 'we never observe a plate to unsmash', you were clearly wrong. If you were using this ineptly as a specific example of the general law that entropy is always increasing, then I accept that to be true. The problem is, entropy requires change. Change presupposes the concept of ever-flowing time. If you have presupposed ever-flowing time, then your argument puts the cart before the horse (because the idea of ever-flowing time, as a physical rather than a psychological phenomenon, is the very thing in question). > > > There is therefore an *observational* imbalance. > > > The question is not of what we observe in the world. The question is > > of how to explain it. Nothing I'm saying truly contradicts > > observation, it just contradicts previous explanations of it. > > It turns out this is useless in science. Alternative explanations for > common phenomena do not represent a new kind of understanding. What > happens in science is that if there are two competing explanations, > then the task is to isolate where they make *different* predictions > about what will be seen in nature under certain circumstances, and > then to test which of the predictions better matches experimental > measurement. Indeed. The point is that the idea of ever-flowing time makes predictions that are logically contradictory (like loops in time), or unfalsifiable (like multiple universes). If we start to think of the universe in terms of having no flow of time, then we eliminate those contradictory/unfalsifiable predictions immediately. > > As for the laws of thermodynamics, they can be surmounted if you say > > that energy remains constant across space *and time*, > > Energy conservation IS a statement about being constant in time, not > in space. Energy conservation says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. On any understanding of that, all energy must be present at all times in some form somewhere within the 4 dimensions. > > and indeed on > > that reading the laws of thermodynamics *preclude* any "travelling > > backwards in time", because to turn the whole universe back to a > > previous state would require an input of energy from outside the > > universe (which I use to mean "all time and space" as we know it). > > I don't follow this. If it's constant, then there's no input of energy > from outside the universe in either temporal direction. Constant means > the SAME, no deposits or withdrawals required. Reversing time just > switches deposits and withdrawals, but if there are none in one > direction, then there are none in the other direction. No. Reversing time would surely consume energy somewhere, and therefore increase entropy somewhere. If energy is consumed in the future in order to send matter back in time, then the 2nd law precludes time travel, because the infinite iterations of the loop (i.e. infinite journeys through time, and infinite useful energy required to power the time machine at the start of each of those journeys) could not be sustained with the finite useful energy in the universe. The only way the 2nd law and time travel are compatible is if initiating time travel (i.e. 'revving up the time machine') does not increase entropy. > > Also note that this interpretation discards the idea of "parallel > > universes". It discards the idea of travel backwards in time, and > > travel to the future can only be achieved by slowing down one's own > > time. It therefore discards loops in time, and the grandfather > > paradox. In fact my theory discards just about every paradox we are > > currently wrestling with, and as yet has none of its own. > > There are no paradoxes in the current theory. There are *teaching > examples*, but no paradoxes. Everything I've read about time suggests a great number of contrivances or arbitrary assumptions (parallel universes, for example) required to avoid paradoxes. And to echo the thoughts of Alphonse X, "if the Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation thus, I would have recommended something simpler".
From: Ste on 23 Dec 2009 03:45
On 23 Dec, 07:32, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5d986724-dc3e-45aa-a3a0-e2984126e115(a)b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 22 Dec, 13:57, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > >> > > > But if you prefer a different term, then let me > >> > > > say "it relies on an understanding of time that > >> > > > is ever-moving-forward". > > >> > > We don't see things getting younger. > > >> > Yes we do. A 40 year old egg turns into a 1 year old > >> > child. > > >> No, the egg is formed from a different kind of cell a few hours before > >> being released for its trip. SO you play games, and waste time. > > > I'm not playing games. I'm illustrating that while we both accept that > > the egg or whatever has changed physical state, it has not got "older" > > in any objectively measurable way. Indeed, we measure "age" simply by > > reference to physical state - something is "old" because it has > > developed a particular physical state, but then it becomes "young" > > again as soon as its physical state changes to the "young" state. As > > such "age" is a measure of physical state, not passage of time. > > Except, of course, when someone says "I am 21 years old" .. that is indeed a > measure of passage of time (21 years). No doubt. > It you use subjective terms like > 'old' or 'young', then you get into trouble. Physical doesn't deal with > subjective descriptions. Indeed, which is why we should discard the passage of time, since fundamentally life and death are mere subjective descriptions, and "21 years old" only makes sense if you accept the subjective perception of birth. |