|
|
|
|
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 26 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/4/2007 5:28:54 AM | Time needs a starting point.
We are conditioned to belief "something" started the stuff of life. Perhaps it's a myth.
The entire concept of infinity , it always has and will always be, is something most reject.
I propose energy doesn't suddenly come into being, it has always been there in some form. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/4/2007 6:36:51 AM | Time is the distance between now and now.
How long is "now"?
That depends on mental resolution; now can be a thousandth of a second or several minutes.
Distance between nows, or duration, we have standardised in increments. The increments are an illusion, time is not. Gravity is an illusion determined by particle anihilation if memory serves. The more particles within a planet or sun decaying back to lesser states of existance (wave mechanics) the higher the pull on surrounding matter. Events of any kind could not occur without time. Anomolies like satalite desync are to be expected. I reckon if you could fly to the edge of the universe and look behind you in real-time (no gravity sources withing lightyears) you'd see the universe as a fireworks display, eons passing in moments. We are contained in an ocean of space-time to this day.
gulp :) | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/5/2007 12:00:59 AM | Deagleninja said it the best and most to the point: Time is the direction of change in entropy. The glass first falls and then it breaks, it doesn't gather itself off the kitchen floor and hop onto the countertop. That is what the direction of ontropy is, and it hods throughout the universe.
Entropy simply IS, it is not dependant on some mathematical formula we apply to physics. We don't determine reality with formulas, reality determines our formulas!!! The formula comes after.
Electrons are not 'frozen still' around the nucleus like someone said before me, they would fall onto the nucleus (unless Newton is wrong and you're right, but I put my money on Newton)!!! Also they do not revolve around it because they would lose energy, slow down and again fall onto the nucleus. They are waves, and their particle 'alter ego' is only a mathematical function of probablity.
In fact, all matter is waves, even us. The reason we don't diffract like the photon through two doors is the ratio between our size and the wavelengths of the particles that we are made of :)
To those of you interested in the subject of time, read 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking, it will clarify a lot of your questions.
We do live in a 4D universe and though it is hard to disprove there are more dimensions, no one, as far as I know has yet proven there are in fact more. And know this: logically you can prove something DOES exist, but never that something DOES NOT.
Time is real, though perceived by our limited capabilities in an inaccurate way. It is in fact spacetime, it is not an illusion, and that has been proven over and over, though you are entitled to your own belief. If belief rules your reason you should be writing in the religious/faith/metaphysics forums, not in the science ones.
It does have a direction, whether reversible or not, about which much ink has been shed and even more will be.
Regarding the two slit experiment: Light has a DUAL existence, as a particle and as a wave and that's no news. What really gets me is that people, scientists included fail to fully understand it. I haven't seen a double slit experiment where both a film and a particle detector have been used for one proton. Light doesn't have to choose, it should be BOTH at the same time.
One can not perceive a wave, but only its effect. Water waves are pure energy, what you perceive is the effect that wave has on the water molecules, pushing them like an accordion. The same holds with light, you can see its effect on the photographic film as a wave, though you can only observe the particle and not the wave itself, because there is no medium for that wave. It the 'ether' existed, we would be in luck, and we might see it as we see water waves.
If records were hand written with pens about single photons having passed by Galaxy A or B in the Quasar imaginary experiment one million light years from Earth and on Earth we only used one telescope with photographic film, we would find the records to be wrong. Or, would the records magically be rewritten to account for the photon's 'change of mind'. Or, would the pen refuse to write for a million years until the one photon decides in which way to behave? Doesn't that assume a backward flow of energy to recreate the path of the photon? The maximum speed in the Universe is the speed of light, so in principle if we knew what that backwards energy was, we could block it without blocking the photon as well. If we did, the records would not agree, hence you will have two realities!!! That leaves only one out that I can see: only parallel universes would account for the paradox. Even then, one must agree that for this to cease being a paradox, a photon must have a 'free pass' into all parallel universes instantaneously. If it did, the source of the photon must also exist in all parallel universes in exactly the same state, since no considerable flow of photons have come out of nothing, though some subatomic particles do, accompanied by another of opposite spin, I believe (antimatter). I can go further, but you can see how complicated and implausible it gets, all for one little photon. Or better yet, all for one misunderstanding... | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/5/2007 6:33:29 AM | Loving your threads H2O
Remove the assumption that time is linear.
Tic toc rhythmic (cyclic) cell divisions do not represent time..but process. Cycles within cycles etc.
If you think about it, and not lean on our classroom learned perception that time is linear, time can in fact NOT BE linear :)
And in absolute zero realms, time both does not exist, and yet exists in its entirety. But it doesnt move. Therefore, is it TIME as we see it at all?
The correlation between time and motion might not actually be so.
The correlation between gravity and time and physical matter..might be the only 'line' we have examined :)
Take away physical matter. Then take away gravity. Isolate it. What do you have? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/5/2007 10:58:55 AM | | Yes. Time is illusion. Our time appears to be in an oval. Time started slow and expanded as the universe expanded thus slowing time. Some say time is now speeding up to the bottom ove the oval.The oval(or ovals) may make time travel possible according to many great minds. All excistance is at the same point in time. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/5/2007 6:55:48 PM | | There is always quantum fluxuation | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/5/2007 7:26:41 PM | | About quantum fluxuation, could you be more specific I'm not sure if I am familiar with that one. Alot of quantum theories though, so I am super sure my knowledge doesn't even scrape the surface. (however when I say those words aloud 'Quantum Fluxuation' It makes me think of "Back to the Future".) | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/5/2007 9:22:12 PM | We do live in a 4D universe and though it is hard to disprove there are more dimensions, no one, as far as I know has yet proven there are in fact more. And know this: logically you can prove something DOES exist, but never that something DOES NOT.
The accurate way to express that idea is that we live in a universe in which we are (presently) capable of measuring/directly observing only 4 dimensions (3 physical, 1 change). All major, accepted theories require a universe that contains more than 4 dimensions. The biggest question at this point is whether there are 10, 11 or 26 dimensions.
While you are correct that the extra dismensions have not been categorically proven, there is no currently accepted theory which can function within 4 dimensions and still account for all observations.
I haven't seen a double slit experiment where both a film and a particle detector have been used for one proton....
They have been done and what is most interesting about it is that if a detector is placed by one slit only the interference pattern will disappear. The interference pattern, which occurs even when photons are sent 1 at a time, exists only when there is no detector at all. This effect is observed even when the experiment has been arranged such that the photon is emitted before the choice of measurement by detector or no measurement is made. In this scenario, a photon which would otherwise function as a wave becomes "locked" into one path or the other after it has already begun it's route through the apparatus. In other words, the photon becomes "locked" in it's "particle state" by the mere presence of the detector even if it is still possible for it to behave as a wave. At present, the only available explanation for this is that information about the present has been "transmitted" into the past in a manner that appears to determine the photons past behaviour.
If records were hand written with pens about single photons having passed by Galaxy A or B in the Quasar imaginary experiment one million light years from Earth and on Earth we only used one telescope with photographic film, we would find the records to be wrong. Or, would the records magically be rewritten to account for the photon's 'change of mind'. Or, would the pen refuse to write for a million years until the one photon decides in which way to behave?
You'll have to ask Wheeler that question however I suspect it is irrelevant because, in order to have recorded the photon in the past (before the telescope is used), the photon would have had to be observed and measured forcing it into one state or the other at which point it's path would already be known and it would no longer exist in a state of superposition. The real question is: would reality for the second observer be different from reality for the first observer (and I think the answer to that is a fairly obvious yes unless the first and second observers were one and the same).
since no considerable flow of photons have come out of nothing, though some subatomic particles do, accompanied by another of opposite spin, I believe (antimatter).
It's called a vacuum fluctuation and it does occur with photons as photons are also sub-atomic particles.
Doesn't that assume a backward flow of energy to recreate the path of the photon?
Actually, what it assumes is a backward flow of information which may or may not be exactly the same as energy as it is currently conceived.
Time is real, though perceived by our limited capabilities in an inaccurate way. It is in fact spacetime, it is not an illusion, and that has been proven over and over,
This is not exactly true. While we are unable to divorce time in our current 4d spacetime it is not at all proven that time must exist at all higher dimensions. While theorists usually ascribe an additional temporal dimension to each higher dimension it is absolutely not proven that time exists in each of these higher dimensions. To use the analogy of 4d time as motion in a 4th physical dimension, even if we assume that time exists in that higher (5d) universe, time as percieved by us is not the same as time in that higher dimension and is a "shadow of a shadow", hence an illusion or artifact (as we are not seeing time as it actually is). As further n+xd spacetime is postulated, time as percieved in 4d spacetime becomes further divorced from the actual nature of time, becoming "a shadow of a shadow of a shadow..." and, as a result, increasingly illusory even if time is accepted as an inevitable and necessary property of the universe as a whole (as in beyond 4d spacetime).
We can extend this further with the postulate that, at it's highest dimensional structure, all dimensions of the universe are in fact physical (as in no time) arriving at the ultimate in superposition where spacetime becomes an infinitely compacted "point" spacetime where all possible states exist simultaneously.
Regardless of that postulate, time as percieved in 4d spacetime does not truly exist but is in fact an illusion or artifact, the shadow of the shadow (etc.) of time. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/5/2007 10:45:50 PM | Fantastic post, mungojoe. It is amazing how conditioned minds can become. I refer to all the people here who believe time is real because they live with it every day. Being able to step back frome every day assumptions and assertions to question and re-examine the obvious takes an astute mind that is becoming more aware of the nature of itself as well as the topic it is studying as it attempts to unravel the issue, in this case time.
The mindset of a true scientist is not so easy to step into as many people believe it is.
In fact, all matter is waves, even us. The reason we don't diffract like the photon through two doors is the ratio between our size and the wavelengths of the particles that we are made of :)
Never heard of the wavicle?
We can extend this further with the postulate that, at it's highest dimensional structure, all dimensions of the universe are in fact physical (as in no time) arriving at the ultimate in superposition where spacetime becomes an infinitely compacted "point" spacetime where all possible states exist simultaneously.
Bingo. Once again the human condition reveals its own limits of perception via the human conditon that most are not typically aware of this on a day to day basis. It's fascinating extrapolation. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 1:10:01 AM | I totally agree in part, that TIME is MOTION. Even those things that we humans see as solid objects are in actuality always in MOTION. The atoms and other extremely small particles are always in MOTION. The Universe is in MOTION. It's perhaps semantics, because TIME is MOTION as MOTION is TIME You can change the words, but the action is but the magic word. TIME is in and around everything whether you think you see it or not. It's there.
If your thoughts stop, that has nothing to do with TIME. TIMES UP, TILL another TIME! Don't keep TIME because it's been here and done that and will continue thru infinitity. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 3:10:10 AM | Great posts mungo and random. And OP at the top of this page.
Am loving this thread... | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 3:40:47 AM | | so salty - you got it all figured out from the thread posts ?? | |
|
| |
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 39 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 12:12:23 PM |
About quantum fluxuation, could you be more specific I'm not sure if I am familiar with that one. Alot of quantum theories though, so I am super sure my knowledge doesn't even scrape the surface. (however when I say those words aloud 'Quantum Fluxuation' It makes me think of "Back to the Future".)
The uncertainty principle is based on a predicate which states that the uncertainty of energy multiplied by the uncertainty of time is greater or equal to a constant. So in principle, as the time a system takes to evolve (delta-t) tends to zero, you need to measure time more and more precisely and as a result the energy uncertainty tends to infinity. No one is sure why this happens, but since it is not possible to accurately measure energy, highly energetic virtual particles that exist for a brief instant can be created and annihalated at any point in space. In a classical sense, this is a violation of energy conservation, but according to quantum mechanics it does not because of the uncertainty principle....Its analogous to the saying that its not a crime if you don't get caught....so in a sense, since its impossible to detect the particle or its energy because its so short lived then it can really take on any energy without violating the energy conservation principle.
long story short, these virtual particles, although short lived, have very real interactions with real particles and their contribution must be taken into account. We know this because if their effects are not taken into consideration quantum mechanics would make predictions that make no sense. If they were ignored for example, transistor technology would fail and no computer would work properly. So in one sense, virtual particles are very counterintuitive....however, much of technology today is dependent on them.
these virtual particles manifest themselves as quantum fluctuations. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 12:38:45 PM | Thanks a ton! Enrico71
I was on the entirely wrong train of thought. Now reading your post I remember hearing of these before. Like I said though, my knowledge base is tiny when compared to the whole.
I am enjoying the heck out of this thread though. Nothing like getting a mental boost. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 6:14:38 PM | Maybe air is composed of strings. Air is considered non-matter, air still occupies space, its composite gases have density.
If the quantum strings are so small and existing in other dimensions shouldn't even air/gases be composed of strings along with matter..?
Non-matter is space-time... Time is only relevant because our consciousness passes through the fabric of space/time... So is space/non-matter made up of strings at its smallest level?
Can you have time without consciousness...hmmm, I think that's a cyclical argument...
So, is time and thus space made up of strings just the same way that matter is? And, if it is, doesn't this imply that even non-matter is matter?
I am thinking I like this membrane idea (E. Whitten I believe his name is)...it would explain how time, space, non-space all conicide to make our universe...
And then the thing that is beside our universe is just another membrane . Except what holds the membranes? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 7:41:32 PM | wow. This is a deep discussion into a simple defined measurable quantity.
Time like space (distance) is a defined parameter to model STUFF. Like most relative measurement quantities it extends to +- infinity. It is not complicated, its just a system people are used to. Then we moved to combining base measures and came up with some other derived measures like speed and energy. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/6/2007 11:29:50 PM | "Then we moved to combining base measures and came up with some other derived measures like speed and energy."
Yeah, those are the formulas and quantifiable measures we can assign to space and time. But what about the concept of time as an entity in and of itself... But forces act on other things: then, to create the universe; now as the wind blows, and since just now was the future 2 moments ago the evidence of a force's impact on our universe in the past is directly visible to our senses now.
Time is us standing in space or moving through space as our consciousness lets us perceive it. Time is a tree growing from a small seed, to a great oak. Time is how the dinosaurs were here evidently a long time ago but then they all ceased to be. How conscious were they of time? Time is space. Time is an event and then another event. Time is how long it takes to drink a cup of coffee. Time is money.
Time is more than a unit of measurement. Our universe is more than just a formula. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 44 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/7/2007 3:30:35 AM | One concept I've read states :
Time is a relation, connecting phases of situations, which persist or displace one another.
From "The New Physics and Cosmology : Dialogues with the Dalai Lama "
Three characteristics define a qualified student :
1.) having an open mind, a lack of prejudice or bias.
2.) being perceptive and intelligent,
3.) having a genuine aspiration or yearning. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/7/2007 3:53:33 AM |
We are conditioned to belief "something" started the stuff of life. Perhaps it's a myth.
The entire concept of infinity , it always has and will always be, is something most reject.
Time is a man made unit, we didn't always have time. Time is linear only because we as a society have made it linear. Time is associated with past present and future, linear and motion, forward or backward. We had days and nights with the sunrise and sunset. Other than that there was not time unit as we know it today.
For example, we are conditioned to believe that we need 8 hours sleep (average) that is a deep conditioned belief as a society. Then we have our own personal belief that we may need only 9 hours sleep, but what if we changed our beliefs (now that is a challenge) and said we only need 4 hours sleep. It can be done and has been done. A baby doesn't know time as we know it. If you watch a baby, that baby just is, sleeps whenever and eats whenever with no thought or time given to if it is night or day or when the baby had his/her last feed. That baby grows up with the conditioning we have placed on that child, that they must sleep at night and be active during the day. In that moment we have placed a conditioning belief in the child to sleep at the right time and to eat at the right time.
The correlation between time and motion might not actually be so.
Take away physical matter. Then take away gravity. Isolate it. What do you have?
Take away time as a unit and take away the linear concept of time then there is only this moment and it's in this very moment, the moment when nothing exists it is then everything is made possible.
H2O in that very moment the concept of infinity is no longer a concept but a reality, any reality one chooses to have. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/7/2007 4:43:19 AM | In relativity, the experience of time is dependant upon the speed which an object travels.
Anything which travels at the speed of light, does not experience time.
A space ship traveling to the nearest star at the speed of light will take about 4 years in our experience. But, to the people in the space ship it takes no time at all. As soon as they accelerate to the speed of light, the journey becomes instantaneous to them. The distance and space to the star doesn't exist.
Now then, how long does it take a photon, traveling at the speed of light to cross your living room ?
To you, it takes only a small fraction of a second. To the photon it takes no time at all, so to the photon, your living room doesn't exist.
How long does it take a photon to travel across the galaxy ?
To us it takes about 100,000 years. To the photon it takes no time at all, so the photon doesn't recognize the galaxy to exist.
How long does it take a photon to travel across the whole universe ?
To us it takes between 14 and 15 billion years, depending.
But, to the photon it doesn't take any time at all, so the photon doesn't recognize the universe exists !
Which point of view is correct ? Ours or the photons ?
Can you prove that the universe we see does in fact exist, or is the universe really only a single photon hovering in space going no where ? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/7/2007 1:22:35 PM |
In relativity, the experience of time is dependant upon the speed which an object travels.
Anything which travels at the speed of light, does not experience time.
Not quite. The percieved passage of time is relative to the relationship between the observed and the observer.
To a stationary observer time appears to stop for the object in motion. To an observer in motion time will appear to speed up for a stationary object.
If a clock travelling at the speed of light were observed by a stationary observer the clock would appear to have stopped while a stationary clock will appear to keep normal time.
If the observer is moving along with the clock it will appear to be keeping normal time and a stationary clock will appear to be keeping time too fast. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/7/2007 7:08:15 PM | Three characteristics define a qualified student :
1.) having an open mind, a lack of prejudice or bias.
2.) being perceptive and intelligent,
3.) having a genuine aspiration or yearning.
Love it! I only qualify in the first instance :) But I still love it...
I'm a born skeptic. I dont take anything at face value. And I have this insatiable idiotic curosity..that inevitably both takes me to places I never knew existed..and gets me into trouble each time 
Aspiration or yearning? Or blind stupidity combined with a sense of wow?
I learned something a few years back now...when I tipped an existing FACT on its head, and suddenly at least 6000 things fell into place. I stood there with my mouth open (literally) and I was both amazed...and also a little 'empty' because so many of my own questions/quests disappeared in one fell swoop. With one tiny changed perception..it all made sense. And easily. I learned something from that.
Re time? It took so many heartbeats to type this....in THIS dimension...in this realm bound by physical laws and 'stuff'
If we believe that what we can sense through our physical senses, and in some cases even metaphysical senses, is all there is......then I think our ego (pride in knowledge) might be getting in the way of our mind.
Modern science in its need to PROVE (an esssential part of it) is bounded by endless means that have been 'developed' to do just that. It has created the definitions by which hypotheses can be proven....ie by MEASUREMENT
TIME (as it is defined) is simply 'one' of those tools developed in order to measure and define, in an attempt to understand/prove/justify an existing hypothesis.
Maybe we could have a thread on what is in acre? You could get into a headspin over the measurements and practical applications and even the histories of it. You might picture something tangible, like a piece of farmland, or a city block (the perception of it) you can get into the division of land, the history of civilisation, urbanisation. All sorts it CAN conjure up in our mind. All merely perceptions.
But what is an acre? Really?
Nothing. Truly nothing. It is an invented measurement for the convenience of those who needed to create a consistent definition and for their own purposes. An acre does not really exist at all.
Does time? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/7/2007 7:54:10 PM |
Nothing. Truly nothing. It is an invented measurement for the convenience of those who needed to create a consistent definition and for their own purposes. An acre does not really exist at all.
Does time?
only if one chooses for it to exist. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/7/2007 9:27:46 PM | A quick correction.
If a clock travelling at the speed of light were observed by a stationary observer the clock would appear to have stopped while a stationary clock will appear to keep normal time.
If the observer is moving along with the clock it will appear to be keeping normal time and a stationary clock will appear to be keeping time too fast.
As was pointed out to me, the clock analogy was not the best. In reality the clocks would appear to move slower for both.
The point I was trying to illustrate (apparently not so successfully) is the relative differential in the passage of time for both the stationary and moving persons.
More accurately put (and using numbers I pulled out of my a** because I'm to lazy to give mathematically accurate numbers), for a journey of, say 1 light year, the moving person would age 1 year while the stationary person would age, say, 10 years compared to the moving person.
In other words when the stationary and moving person met after the journey the moving person would appear 1 year older than when he left (and think he was only gone for 1 year) and the stationary person would appear 10 years older than he was when the moving person left on the journey (and think the traveller was gone for 10 years).
I was attempting to illustrate the relative difference in the passage of time for each of the people involved compared to the other, while forgetting to include the fact that "seeing" the clocks requires light (which moves at the same speed for both). | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 26
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 |
|
Home
login 
