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: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 06:11 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4dc35775-b224-44a2-8bfa-79e121ed5059(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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, No > since > fundamentally life and death are mere subjective descriptions, and "21 > years old" only makes sense if you accept the subjective perception of > birth. Don't be ridiculous.
From: Ste on 23 Dec 2009 13:31 On 23 Dec, 11:11, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> 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, > > No > > > since > > fundamentally life and death are mere subjective descriptions, and "21 > > years old" only makes sense if you accept the subjective perception of > > birth. > > Don't be ridiculous. Just accept that you can't logically argue your position.
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 15:14 On Dec 23, 2:00 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Please don't be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I gave you an example of a *closed system* where entropy increases. You gave an example of a plate being put together by an external process. If you consider the plate your system, it's not a closed system. If you include the machinery used to reassemble the plate, the entropy of that entire system still increases, though the entropy of a *part* of it does not. > > 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. Yes, and the law makes note of the fact that nonequilibrium processes in closed systems tend to go one way only in time, which imbues time with an arrow associated with increasing entropy. Entropy, by the way, is not dependent on time. It is a state variable, which means that you can calculate the entropy of a system without regard to whether the time of that state is before or after another state. What is true is that spontaneous processes (regardless of time) tend to increase entropy. It is secondarily noted that time tends to also increase with the increase in entropy. > 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), I know of no laws of physics that permit causality loops. There is no contradiction there. > 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. Multiple universes is not contingent on a one-way flow of time. Nor is it obvious that this is unfalsifiable. There is work afoot to *experimentally* detect other branes. Do you need some pointers to that work? > > > > 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. There's a key difference. You're assuming your available space is the whole universe. Energy conservation is a statement about the invariance of energy with respect to time-slices through that universe, and even more importantly, through slices of *subsets* of that universe representing closed systems. The closed system does NOT have to be a fixed region in space and is often not. > > > > 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. What? Now you're just making a science fiction babble about a time- reversal machine. This doesn't have to do with the physical nature of things with respect to time. > > If energy is consumed in the future in order to send matter back in > time, What makes you think this is consistent with the laws of physics? > 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. ?? Parallel universes don't have anything to do with resolution of 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: jdawe on 23 Dec 2009 18:32 On Dec 20, 10:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > the question is this: exactly what leads > us to conclude that we are constantly moving forward in time? Well, We have time. or We have distance. Which are equally opposing. Which means we can: Invert time into distance. or Invert distance into time. In other words: The greater the distance we travel then the less time we will have. or The greater the time we have then the less the distance we will travel. > 'constantly moving forward in time' Because time is opposed by distance you will never have 100% absolute time. There must always be some distance travelled in time. or There must always be some time used no matter the amount of distance we cover. So, Even at the speed of light time may run very slow but it will never 'stop' so there is no time. The fact that there will always be: Some time in distance. or Some distance in time. allows: Time to invert back into distance. or Distance to invert back into time. -Josh.
From: Ste on 23 Dec 2009 20:42
On 23 Dec, 20:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 2:00 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Please don't be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. > I gave you an example of a *closed system* where entropy increases. > You gave an example of a plate being put together by an external > process. If you consider the plate your system, it's not a closed > system. If you include the machinery used to reassemble the plate, the > entropy of that entire system still increases, though the entropy of a > *part* of it does not. > > > > > 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. > > Yes, and the law makes note of the fact that nonequilibrium processes > in closed systems tend to go one way only in time, which imbues time > with an arrow associated with increasing entropy. > > Entropy, by the way, is not dependent on time. It is a state variable, > which means that you can calculate the entropy of a system without > regard to whether the time of that state is before or after another > state. > > What is true is that spontaneous processes (regardless of time) tend > to increase entropy. It is secondarily noted that time tends to also > increase with the increase in entropy. I know what you're getting at, but you're still presupposing the flow of time. Entropy cannot possibly "increase" without a flow of time. Nothing that involves change can happen without presupposing a flow of time. The 2nd law of thermodynamics presupposes a flow of time - begging the very question it is supposed to answer, namely, are our coordinates in the 4th dimension constantly incrementing. While you think about that, think about this: if time is flowing, then at what rate does it flow? > > 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), > > I know of no laws of physics that permit causality loops. There is no > contradiction there. > > > 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. > > Multiple universes is not contingent on a one-way flow of time. Nor is > it obvious that this is unfalsifiable. There is work afoot to > *experimentally* detect other branes. Do you need some pointers to > that work? Only if the work has produced results. > > > > 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. > > There's a key difference. You're assuming your available space is the > whole universe. Energy conservation is a statement about the > invariance of energy with respect to time-slices through that > universe, and even more importantly, through slices of *subsets* of > that universe representing closed systems. The closed system does NOT > have to be a fixed region in space and is often not. I'm afraid I have lost you. > > > > 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. > > What? Now you're just making a science fiction babble about a time- > reversal machine. This doesn't have to do with the physical nature of > things with respect to time. I'm merely voicing the speculative ideas of others. If time is flowing, then by definition is must be theoretically possible to navigate the flow in both directions. If it is not possible to navigate the flow in both directions, then the concept of the past is a meaningless, and superfluous, concept. Because once there is no past, events can be described simply in terms of either being simultaneous (i.e. the events have the same coordinates in the 4th dimension), or of being separated in time (i.e. the events are found at different coordinates in the 4th dimension). Time by that model does not require constant forward flow, nor does the model even permit a distinction between forward and backward flow. > > If energy is consumed in the future in order to send matter back in > > time, > > What makes you think this is consistent with the laws of physics? Which part? I certainly don't think time travel is consistent with the laws of physics, because my very position is that I don't accept that time is flowing at all. > > 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. > > ?? Parallel universes don't have anything to do with resolution of > paradoxes. I think you'll find that they do, because by definition a time traveller would, from the moment of his arrival, follow a different "path", and thus he would never reach the point at which he travelled back in time (because that event then belongs to a parallel universe). |