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 21 Dec 2009 20:03 "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: > 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? What then?
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 20:06 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > Incidentally, what do you think of this hypothesis: light moves only > in three dimensions, not four, Everything does .. as movement is, by definition, a change in spatial dimension of a period of time > and that 4 dimensions are only required > to describe the behaviour of matter? Except light takes time to travel > I'm sure you'll agree that it's a > hypothesis that immediately explains why light always propagates at a > constant speed. No .. it does not .. it's really a nonsense as you have expressed it. And it would mean light would not travel anywhere (or rather would travel instantly, so would simultaneously be everywhere at once)
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 20:09 "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: >> 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. What paradoxes? If you mean the so-called 'paradoxes' of relativity (like the twins paradox) .. they are not paradoxes at all .. just counter-intuitive examples that 'resolve' when relativity is applied correctly. They are teaching / learning aids. > 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. You'd need a different approach than your current approach to do so. At the moment you are just discussing philosophy (metaphysics). And you'll need to understand more clearly what physics currently does say about time and space.
From: dlzc on 21 Dec 2009 20:49 Dear Ste: On Dec 21, 4:42 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Dec, 20:41,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > 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. Ernest Wittke does this all the time. > > Who is schizophrenic? > > The aforementioned schizophrenic who hears > voices. > > > Is our > > belief driven by our perception, or not? > > At least partially it is. Then your questions have no hard answers. > > > > > 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" Does not address either spark or flame. > > 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. Memory is a chemical change in the brain. Existing memories are used but to categorize the datumn, and are also affected by said datumn. You are asking about the "one wayness" of time... can we not drift too far from that at this point? > > > 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. No, constructs of the human mind are models. > 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. We don't remember tomorrow, today. The model resolves from the facts. Yes, the shape of the model is constrained by the mind that forms it... > > > 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". The following sentence. You snip and comment too soon. > > 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. Yes, it is. > 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. This does not place B before A. Please keep your eye on the ball. > 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. A light signal is produced by A, and when received at B, B happens. All observers will see A happen before B. Your "mental construct" applies to something else. > > > 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. NO! A change in speed produces a change in the *difference* between two events (say clock ticks) between the rest frame and the moving frame. > 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). This "definition" is entirely untenable. > 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. It is your fantasy, *you* poke holes in it. Make some (even qualitative) predictions and lets see if it can be observed. > > > > > 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. We have a reference. "Years". Compare and contrast to the length of human lifetime, or how long it takes someone to read this thread. > And if a "fundamental constant" like the fine > structure constant is changing, then clearly the > present laws of physics aren't complete. Well we agree on that. They aren't complete. Everyone else knows this. Science is not Religion. We don't have a deity to hand down the final writ. > > > 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 watch. Let's say it is a Rolex knock-off. It indicates the instant of New Years the instant you send it back one hour into the past. Before 23:00:00 on 2009-dec-31, you have one watch with random time indicated. Between 23:00:00 on 2009-dec-31 and New Years instant, how many watches do you have? How many watches do you have after that instant? > > 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. Does not apply. Answer the questions above. > > 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? Why do you write answers in the order they are asked, and under the statements / questions made? We are trying to describe the regular change in the world around us, a change that is written in rocks, the minds of even small animals. You seek only to say "it doesn't matter, because I am intellectually opposed to such description". How is the position you were at when your odometer reads 1000, different from the position you are at when it reads 1001? You are always "there", you always have some speed, some light, some scenery. > > > 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. That is what we are talking about. > Even if we tolerate the hypothesis of past and > future, the past would not be identical by > virtue of the matter transported back. Correct. > The future would change by virtue of the matter > transported forward. Splitting of timelines, correct. > 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. Sure. > Why not instead discard the notion of past and > future? We lose the ability to describe the terrain. Why not acknowledge that you have Asperger's, cannot get past this obsession, and seek professional help? > Why not start talking of the movment of the > 4th dimension as being something other > than that measured by the ticking of a clock? What is the sound of one hand clapping? > > > Would the two not be indistinguishable > > > by reference to their internal state? > > > No. > > Indeed. So energy is conserved through all > 4 dimensions. Energy is from where the dimensions arise, IMO. > > > 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). Read the sentence you just wrote backwards, or randomize the words. Which orientation says what you intended? Let's call that orientation "forwards", shall we? > Am I right that "s^2" in the above equation is > seconds squared? No. It is a proper displacement, and its units are "distance 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. It describes the distance in units of distance between two events, no matter how separated (space or time). If s^2 is zero, they are light- like separated. If s^2 is positive they are time-like separated. Either of those support cause-effect relationships. > 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. Doesn't work, since light responds to the space it travels through. Curving paths, polarity changes, and so on. > > > > 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. Quantum objects do not experience time. A radioactive nucleus does not age. It is as likely to decay *now* as it might be 100 billion years from now, no matter what its "half life" might be. Time and aging are functions of "large" statistical systems. You waste your time attacking something your "tens of hours" of thought are not preparing you for. .... > > > > > 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). That awaits you making some qualitative predictions. > > > 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. No paradoxes, but those in your mind. I am asking you what you'd expect to see differently. > 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? Reverse time don't do it. > 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. A billiard ball. Unvaporized. Not launched by a nuclear explosion. On Earth's surface. Near sea level, but not under it. Released 6 inches from the billiard table surface. In 1000 tries will it always fall down? > > > 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. Yes, it does. Thank you for playing. David A. Smith
From: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 22:33
On 22 Dec, 00:46, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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 I'd be interested to know what experiments those are, although I doubt they truly violate the principle of cause and effect (which is *necessarily* true, remember, by virtue of its definition). |