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: Androcles on 21 Dec 2009 16:14 "dlzc" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:2ad31a67-5227-4321-8cf1-00ffff33932f(a)a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com... Dear Ste: Now to the rest of your post... On Dec 21, 12:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 20 Dec, 17:22,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. > > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all > > > seriousness, > > > I gave an elegant (or at least not > > incorrect in any part) and reasoned > > answer. > > And schizophrenics often hear voices, > but I was hoping for a more detailed > justification than simply appeal to > bare human perception or intuition. You keep asking why do *we* think this or that, but you don't want to know *why* we see things that way? Who is schizophrenic? Is our belief driven by our perception, or not? ============================================ Where did he say *we*, Smiffy? Who is schizophrenic? Is *y*our belief driven by *Y*our perception, or not? Obviously *YOU* are schizophrenic, *we* are not, and *your* answer is far from elegant and incorrect in part.
From: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 18:42 On 21 Dec, 20:41, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Ste: > > Now to the rest of your post... > > On Dec 21, 12:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 20 Dec, 17:22,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. > > > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all > > > > seriousness, > > > > I gave an elegant (or at least not > > > incorrect in any part) and reasoned > > > answer. > > > And schizophrenics often hear voices, > > but I was hoping for a more detailed > > justification than simply appeal to > > bare human perception or intuition. > > You keep asking why do *we* think this or that, but you don't want to > know *why* we see things that way? No, it's just I was hoping that some answers would be selected out of this discussion, namely those which appeal to the obviousness of what is perceived by the human senses in daily life. > Who is schizophrenic? The aforementioned schizophrenic who hears voices. > Is our > belief driven by our perception, or not? At least partially it is. > > > > and because it strikes me that there is > > > > nothing that suggests an absolute constant > > > > movement forward along any spacial > > > > dimension, so why is there an assumption > > > > of constant movement forward along the > > > > time dimension (which introduces > > > > absurdities like travelling into the past)? > > > > Not an assumption. Based on evidence, > > > the cause never follows the effect. > > > But isn't that a tautology? > > Spark leads to flame is not a tautology. Let's break it down then. "Cause precedes effect." Cause n. "that which precedes effect" Effect n. "something caused" By these definitions, "cause precedes effect" is a tautology. And to define tautology: Tautology n. "a compound proposition which is unconditionally true" > Memory laid into an existing > knowledge base is not a tautology. I've lost you. Neither the memory nor the imagination is evidence of time. A system frozen in time, but not frozen in space - and you notice that I reject the tautology that a system frozen in time is frozen in space - would still be able to perform the function of memorising and imagining. > > By definition, the cause precedes the > > effect, and it relies on a model of > > time that is ever-moving-forward. > > It does not rely on a preexisting "model". Everything is a model. But if you prefer a different term, then let me say "it relies on an understanding of time that is ever-moving- forward". > > We know from experiments showing "time > > dilation" that where event A would normally > > be observed to precede event B, it can be > > made to happen that event B will observably > > precede event A. > > No, it cannot in general. Is there some difference in meaning here between saying "it cannot" and "it cannot in general". > If events A and B are light-like separated > (or slower), then they are always seen to occur in the same order. But that is not true. Clocks on GPS stations tick slower than on Earth by virtue of their speed. Events which would previously have happened simultaneously, happen at different perceived-times when one is moving at a different speed to the other. Theoretically, with two identical clocks it can be made that, where tick 2 on clock A would be expected to precede tick 3 on clock B, instead tick 3 on clock B precedes tick 2 on clock A. The sequence of events has observably reversed. > > But rather than assuming that the forward > > progression of time "slowed down" for the > > material phenomenon responsible for event > > B, why not simply think in terms of the > > events having moved away from each other > > in time (without requiring any overall > > movement forward)? > > Mox nix. (A distinction without a difference.) The difference is that a change of speed = a change in the value of the 4th dimension. And equality of speed = value of the 4th dimension is constant. When two objects travel at the same speed, they *stand still* in time (relative to any frame of reference). I'm convinced after tens of hours of contemplation in total, and no prior training in physics, that we must throw out the assumption of constant movement forward in time. And if that sounds ludicrous, then that is why I want someone to tell me why I'm wrong. > > > > On the subject of travelling into the > > > > past, how would travelling backwards in > > > > time, be distinguishable from simply > > > > restoring the universe to the same > > > > physical state as in the past (but which > > > > had not actually travelled "back in time" > > > > in any meaningful sense)? > > > > Violation of conservation of mass/energy. > > > Violation of Pauli exclusion principle. > > > The same matter cannot be in the same > > > Universe twice, or at least it has never > > > been seen to do so. > > > It is certainly true that to change the > > state of part of the present universe > > would consume a great deal of energy > > elsewhere in the universe - such that, > > overall, the universe was not in an > > identical state as in the past. > > Yet we see "identical" physics displayed for the last 13+ billion > years, with a monotonic shift in the fine structure constant of 1 part > in 10^8 in that time. Without a frame of reference, 13 billion years may not be a very long time. And if a "fundamental constant" like the fine structure constant is changing, then clearly the present laws of physics aren't complete. > > But let us consider time travel. Sending > > matter back into the past would lead to > > mass/energy being lost from the present, > > and deposited in the past, yes? > > Yes, and doubled-up for the duration of its stay. Indeed. > > And if energy is robbed from the future > > and deposited in the past, then really > > one may have described the same process > > as robbing energy from half of the > > universe, to fund the restoration of > > another part of the universe. > > Not really, since the matter will eventually propagate forward to the > point of its departure, if nothing else were to occur. How so? By the inexorable march of time? That cracks me up. > You have a > doubling of matter for some finite span. Not a "doubling". The matter is not doubled. Merely moved in the 4th dimension. If I borrow money from a bank, I don't "double" my assets. I merely use (if you will bear the analogy) future assets for present purposes - there is no overall gain, merely movement in the 4th dimension. > Or if the trip is into the > future (ala. The Time Machine), then the matter is missing for that > time. Why do we bear such absurdities? Why not just say that the past exists only in our memories, the future only in our imaginations, and the perceived passage of time is not equivalent to movement in the fourth dimension? > > Thus, how would a system restored to a > > particular state by consuming energy > > from a different place in time, be any > > different to a system restored to > > particular state by consuming energy from > > a different place in space? > > Gravitational effects different, spacetime would have to adjust. But spacetime would also have to adjust if matter/energy is moved in the 4th dimension. Even if we tolerate the hypothesis of past and future, the past would not be identical by virtue of the matter transported back. The future would change by virtue of the matter transported forward. Therefore even time travel could not restore the past to its *exact* state, because from the very moment you landed in the past, the universe would adjust in response to your presence. Why not instead discard the notion of past and future? Why not start talking of the movment of the 4th dimension as being something other than that measured by the ticking of a clock? > > Would the two not be indistinguishable > > by reference to their internal state? > > No. Indeed. So energy is conserved through all 4 dimensions. > > If not, then why treat the dimension of > > time differently from the dimensions of > > space? > > We don't. That is what relativity is all about. Proper displacement: > s^2 = - (c/\t)^2 + (/\x^2 + /\y^2 + /\x^2) > ... typically the only thing we have different is the units. I'd > recommend "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler, which has as much > or as little mathematics as you'd wish. What I'm saying is that we treat the temporal dimension differently from the spacial dimensions in that we *presume* we are always moving forward in the temporal dimension (whereas we do not presume constant absolute movement in any of the spacial dimensions - indeed relativity rules out even the concept). Am I right that "s^2" in the above equation is seconds squared? If so, the statement does not refer to time, it refers to rate of change (in 3 dimensions, not 4) when the temporal dimension is given a constant value. And rate of change is only a concept required for prediction, a human behaviour, it is not required for describing the state of the universe. Incidentally, what do you think of this hypothesis: light moves only in three dimensions, not four, and that 4 dimensions are only required to describe the behaviour of matter? I'm sure you'll agree that it's a hypothesis that immediately explains why light always propagates at a constant speed. > > > There have been SciFi stories of people > > > that "aged" backwards, and remembered the > > > future but not the past... the bodies > > > appeared to the rest of us as moving > > > forward. > > > Lol. I'm sure we can dismiss sci-fi from > > our consideration. > > The distance between thought experiments and SciFi is a lot shorter > than you seem to think. Look at the works of Arthur C. Clarke. No doubt. But Clarke was an engineer and was ahead of his time, whereas people who talk of "aging backwards" are not usually engineers and they are behind their time. I consider myself belonging to the former category. > > > > Obviously I haven't posted here before, > > > > so I'm not sure whether there is anyone > > > > here who can discuss this at an > > > > appropriate level. > > > > If you want mathematics and appropriate > > > basis in underlying and related physical > > > laws, you might post instead on > > > sci.physics.foundations. It is a > > > moderated newsgroup, so it'll take a > > > while for your posts and replies to appear. > > > To be honest at this stage I'm not as > > interested in discussing it at a mathematical > > level, as much as I am interested to know > > whether anyone has ever suggested the idea > > before, and if so what are the criticisms > > of the idea. > > Best place to ask if anyone was able to find anything to the idea > worth investigating to even that extent. I certainly will. > > > > And more generally, I'm interested to > > > > know whether the assumption of forward > > > > movement is not just a product of > > > > subjective human intuitions (and > > > > bearing in mind that every paradigm > > > > shift in science has involved throwing > > > > out what was previously held as > > > > unquestionable). > > > > It is not an assumption. It is the > > > result of experiment. Phenomenon in > > > systems have been found to be irreversible. > > > "The Arrow of Time" applies only to systems, > > > much as "population mean" applies only to > > > populations. > > > That does not strike me as a proof. > > You wanted to know something has been considered, then you discount > this out-of-hand? I'm not discounting it out of hand as such. What I'm saying is there is no proof here (which concerns me because it means there is no disproof of what I'm suggesting). > > If there is an experiment that has > > *proven* the forward movement of time, > > then I'm interested to know of it so I > > can find out more about it. > > Science is not about proof, but disproof. We make guesses as to how > Nature will behave, then we find out how good our guesses were. How > can we disprove your idea? What features would you expect to see, > that differ from other models of time? What can I disprove? Well, what have you got? We have the irresolvable paradoxes of the existing model of time. Then what are the remaining problems in physics between what we can observe, and what we can't explain with a unified theory? Gravity, perhaps? Perhaps I should turn my hand to theoretical physics after all, because I've turned them to pretty much everything else. > > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" > > > of gravity in a similar way. Might as well > > > try something that Nature can speak directly > > > to you about. > > > Our understanding of gravity has changed many > > times over the centuries. No one "questions > > gravity", any more than I am questioning > > time itself; what I am questioning is our > > understanding of it. > > Do you expect mass to fall up in your "understanding"? Mass can fall up, in the sense it can go up and never come down. That "what goes up must come down" was a fiction that went bang a long time ago. > > And in particular what I'm saying is that we > > put "the past" and "the future" to bed as > > fictions of the mind, much as we have put to > > bed fictions about the four humours, and > > heaven and hell (though this one still > > kicks beneath the covers). > > Worse than under the covers... Indeed. > So you want to repeal drinking age laws, patent law, gestation > periods, and what else? Age does not measure travel in time. It describes state change in the spacial dimensions. Change is a human construct, required for prediction. It is not required for description. Hammer this home: change <> movement in time. > > What if we properly understand time as > > something that actually remains still on > > Earth? What if "time dilation" is properly > > understood not as time moving faster or > > slower, > > No one that studies relativity thinks that. That is the soap that the > cranks peddle. It is easy to believe, but applies more "common sense" > interpretations to what is happening that what you appear to be > comfortable with (based on your question). But relativity is common sense today, and yet it once contradicted all commonly-held notions of the known universe. In fact I know from experience that nothing that comes out of my mouth is common sense, even if it's often verifiably true. Really when I say I want to discuss this at a common sense level, I mean I want to discuss it with people who can boil down the maths for me, and point out what existing laws of physics am I contradicting when I make such sweeping statements as "time is standing still earth". I'll learn the maths if I have to (which I'm sure is relatively easy), but I don't want to if I don't have to. It's far easier to climb onto the shoulders of giants. > > but simply of time *moving*, as opposed > > to the (near-)stillness of perceived time > > on Earth? What if we are measuring > > *something other than movement of time* > > when we measure minutes and seconds? > > Yes, we are measuring (in some sense) the second law of > theromdynamics. "Time" is like the magnitude of some vector quantity, > in that it only ever has one sign. Whatever that "vector" might be, > it has never expressed itself in our Universe except as a "magnitude". As I say, I think the concept of "change" has its frame of reference in human psychology. You do not need seconds if you do not need to describe change. Discard change, and you can discard seconds. But when you discard seconds, realise that you do not discard time. The reason why the measurement of minutes and seconds falls down at speed is because the supposed constant required for the correct operation of the mechanical parts of the clock, the fourth dimension, changes in value. A clock made of pure EMR is the only clock that keeps time, because EMR stands still in time. As a final point, the concept of change is required for prediction. But change of physical state is not equal to movement of time.
From: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 19:05 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? > 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. > 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). As for the laws of thermodynamics, they can be surmounted if you say that energy remains constant across space *and time*, 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). 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.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 19:46 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 21 Dec, 20:41, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> Dear Ste: >> >> Now to the rest of your post... >> >> On Dec 21, 12:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 20 Dec, 17:22,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. >> >> > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all >> > > > seriousness, >> >> > > I gave an elegant (or at least not >> > > incorrect in any part) and reasoned >> > > answer. >> >> > And schizophrenics often hear voices, >> > but I was hoping for a more detailed >> > justification than simply appeal to >> > bare human perception or intuition. >> >> You keep asking why do *we* think this or that, but you don't want to >> know *why* we see things that way? > > No, it's just I was hoping that some answers would be selected out of > this discussion, namely those which appeal to the obviousness of what > is perceived by the human senses in daily life. > > > >> Who is schizophrenic? > > The aforementioned schizophrenic who hears voices. > > > >> Is our >> belief driven by our perception, or not? > > At least partially it is. > > > >> > > > and because it strikes me that there is >> > > > nothing that suggests an absolute constant >> > > > movement forward along any spacial >> > > > dimension, so why is there an assumption >> > > > of constant movement forward along the >> > > > time dimension (which introduces >> > > > absurdities like travelling into the past)? >> >> > > Not an assumption. Based on evidence, >> > > the cause never follows the effect. >> >> > But isn't that a tautology? >> >> Spark leads to flame is not a tautology. > > Let's break it down then. "Cause precedes effect." > > Cause n. "that which precedes effect" No .. cause is what makes an effect happen .. it does not HAVE to precede it. Indeed .. we find experiments where cause comes AFTER the effect
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 19:47
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 21 Dec, 20:41, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> Dear Ste: >> >> Now to the rest of your post... >> >> On Dec 21, 12:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 20 Dec, 17:22,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. >> >> > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all >> > > > seriousness, >> >> > > I gave an elegant (or at least not >> > > incorrect in any part) and reasoned >> > > answer. >> >> > And schizophrenics often hear voices, >> > but I was hoping for a more detailed >> > justification than simply appeal to >> > bare human perception or intuition. >> >> You keep asking why do *we* think this or that, but you don't want to >> know *why* we see things that way? > > No, it's just I was hoping that some answers would be selected out of > this discussion, namely those which appeal to the obviousness of what > is perceived by the human senses in daily life. Obviousness is not a prerequisite for correctness. |