|
|
|
|
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/16/2007 5:33:34 PM | What an interesting question... what is time?
Hmm. A metaphysics professor once told me that the phycisist defintion of time is:
"Matter in motion." I think this has been made clear already by many people above.
With that said however, we can presume that time is the occupancy that occurs between the beginning of motion and the end of motion in all that exists.
To pressume that things are forever in motion is to suggest that time is infinite. And this does not seem plausible, for if time were infinite... the NOW.. would not be possible. (Re: the philosophical problems of "Reductio Absurdum.").
There is a particularly interesting perspective on time raised by Friedrich Nietzsche referred to as the doctrine of "The Eternal Return of the Same." I can't remember the details on this doctrine, but I believe it highlights a contemporary view that time is in fact curved. With this in mind... time I actually supports itself in a circular motion so vast an fine that its beyond human understanding.
It would be interesting to imagine a space time relationship in which we could launch an object so far and so fast into one particular direction in space that it would later return to us from its exact opposite direction of launch. The rate at which we can see, perceive and exist of course would not allow this understanding. The speed of light and sound can be calculated by us... so the speed at which a time circle could be completed in the space available to us is beyond comprehension.
I've gone way beyond myself here... but definitely want to say that this is a great thread!!! | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/16/2007 7:22:23 PM | Study string therapy...
Make a string and put it in your fingers like a spider web...
Uh ooops, I meant study string theory...
 | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/16/2007 9:21:07 PM | I just heard on the radio, that scientists now do believe that time travel IS possible.
S'truth! | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/16/2007 11:42:21 PM | I'm aware of string theory, and space-time, read 3 of Hawking's books, and have deeply studied physics, and many aspects of quantum theory,,and what it really boils down to is, time is as subjective as the opinion of the color of shoes one wears, or the type of car that they drive,,it's a matter of perception, and also a way to define a link between distance and motion in small scales.
Gary | |
|
gaby.s
|
Joined: 2/24/2007
Msg: 80 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/17/2007 12:49:59 PM | ' ...but the years pass by quicker as you get older' unquote
I think that time seems to pass more quickly when you get older because , say when you are 4 years old , one year is 25% of your life but when you are 100 , one year is just 1% of your life and so the perspective changes - again at a subjective level ........ re earlier posting , sorry Mr H20 for my clumsy explanation , I did not mean to imply that a vast discussion topic like Time could be captured by one definition , even in scientific terms . | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 81 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/17/2007 1:29:20 PM |
I just heard on the radio, that scientists now do believe that time travel IS possible.
Maybe to go forward into the future, but definately not back. How could
somebody reverse time? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/17/2007 5:11:29 PM | I have not read the entire four pages yet, but I will when my eyes aren't so buggy from the flames. Glad to have found this thread, and forgive me if any of this has already been covered.
Einstein used the letter C in his equasions because it is the universal "C"onstant. It is not the "speed of light" like everyone, including wikipedia, says. It is the ratio of time to space. One number is "the same" as the other when they are expressed as fractions, but they are fundamentally different in concept. "186000 miles per second" means something different than most think.
Second, string theory. This eludes me. I understand how elementary particles seem to have a location in space, but no actual size. If they continue to exist over time, they are not infinitely small, but infinitely long. Both particle and wave. But why more than four dimensions? Never understood the reasoning.
On to the big bang. Time is not separate from space. If space was a singularity, what about time? Obviously not, so perhaps the straight line extrapolation of space along an arbitrary and fixed time line is the reason for this event horizon of sorts.
Finally, a link for someone else's glasswork that devotee's of this thread will like:
http://www.kleinbottle.com/why_acme.htm | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/17/2007 5:18:00 PM | | It didn't work as a link, but cut and paste it into a browser. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/17/2007 6:44:22 PM | Time is not separate from space. If space was a singularity, what about time? Obviously not...
Because space and time are inextricably linked (as in no space without time and no time without space), being different 'expressions' of the same thing, if all of space were to exist as a singularity (all points in space occupying the exact same, infinity small point in space simultaneously) then time must exist as a singularity (all points in time existing at the exact same moment in time simultaneously) as well.
If we work from the idea that, at the universe's highest dimensional structure, all dimensions are physical dimensions then the conclusion would be that space is infinitely compressed or compacted. This would entail that time, reduced to a physical dimension, is also infinitely compressed.
This then leads us to the notion that all points in space and time ultimately coexist simultaneously and the (very zen) concept of the universe both existing and not existing simultaneously, of the universe having been 'born', 'growing', 'dieing' and not yet having been 'born' simultaneously. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/17/2007 6:56:33 PM | | ^^yeah, but there would always be something vibrating at the smallest smallest sub sub point. It's a good theory but we can never fully condense something down to nothing. So time would always exist because space always exists. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 86 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/18/2007 5:46:20 PM | Maybe time can be "frozen" with further research along the lines of a
special allotrope of ice that, when it comes into contact with liquid ,
acts as a crystal "seed", and will catalyze the freezing of any liquid
at ambient temperatures.
Another thought is that time is strickly a "living thing" .
If all life on a planet is dead, no animals, no plants, no bacteria..etc.etc.
then time really has no meaning to anything within that environment.
If there is no atmosphere, no ocean motion, just a fozen sphere down to its core,
time doesn't seem to matter much anymore. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/18/2007 7:35:14 PM | | Yes, but that core that is frozen down will still be under the influence of a gravitational pull as it rotates around something's orbit in space-time. So time still exists in the dead planet's motion as it moves relative to the entire universe. One time it was here and the next time it is there. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 88 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/19/2007 3:20:57 AM | Somehow it always boils down to us seeing/viewing something else from afar
- the whole point of reference thing.
For anyone on a frozen hell like I described, I think time would just about stand still.
I wonder if man had never been able to see the stars or the moon due to really thick clouds/atmosphere,
if our wonderful insight into the universe would have evolved ? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/19/2007 3:36:23 AM |
yeah, but there would always be something vibrating at the smallest smallest sub sub point.
That assumes that space could not be compressed beyond the level of the smallest sub-atomic particle in which case, it would be finitely compressed rather than infinitely compressed.
If infinitely compressed, all points in space would exist in the same infinitely small point. In order for time to exist in any meaningful way it requires a finite minimum space to provide a frame of reference. In an infinitely compressed space there is no finite minimum limit and therefore no frame of reference for time to exist in. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/19/2007 4:01:48 AM | Subject:
Posted By: mungojoe on 3/17/2007 10  22 PM Subject: What is TIME ?? Message: Time is not separate from space. If space was a singularity, what about time? Obviously not... Because space and time are inextricably linked (as in no space without time and no time without space), being different 'expressions' of the same thing, if all of space were to exist as a singularity (all points in space occupying the exact same, infinity small point in space simultaneously) then time must exist as a singularity (all points in time existing at the exact same moment in time simultaneously) as well. If we work from the idea that, at the universe's highest dimensional structure, all dimensions are physical dimensions then the conclusion would be that space is infinitely compressed or compacted. This would entail that time, reduced to a physical dimension, is also infinitely compressed. This then leads us to the notion that all points in space and time ultimately coexist simultaneously and the (very zen) concept of the universe both existing and not existing simultaneously, of the universe having been 'born', 'growing', 'dieing' and not yet having been 'born' simultaneously.
What I meant by "Obviously not" was that if time exists as a singularity billions of years ago then what the hell are we doing here/now? If all of time (including now) exist at a point (8.05423 X 10 to the power of 22) miles from here, something is wrong with the math.
Picture mapping a two dimensional plane from a sphere. As you move along the third dimension, you have the circle collapsing into nothing as you reach the edge of the sphere. Same effect as plotting three dimensions, and moving along a fourth. You can plot back to a point where the three dimensions seem to have come from a single point in space, and explode out of nothing at faster than the speed of light, therby creating the universe. The vanishing point phenomenon seems more likely to me. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/19/2007 3:32:06 PM | That assumes that space could not be compressed beyond the level of the smallest sub-atomic particle in which case, it would be finitely compressed rather than infinitely compressed.
If infinitely compressed, all points in space would exist in the same infinitely small point. In order for time to exist in any meaningful way it requires a finite minimum space to provide a frame of reference. In an infinitely compressed space there is no finite minimum limit and therefore no frame of reference for time to exist in.
But isn't the notion or theory of "infinitely" "COMPRESSING" something inherently implausible? You can't infintely compress something to nothing because there will always be something and therefore there will always be time. You could infinitely "EXPAND" something much like our universe is expanding...but it leads to the question if our universe is expanding and has always been then it wouldve had to begin at one "singularity" to begin with. At least it would logically have to follow that route no?
THe singularity is a good mathematical/geometrical thought but it isn't realistic. You can can have something infintely expand forever but you can't have something infinitely contract with regards to matter. With numbers it's different because you can always have more zeros or you could even go to negative numbers but with matter it's different isn;t it?
Plus, the idea of the singularity means one infitely small point well it's still a point and the point has to exist in something. Like a negative perpetuity will keep getting smaller and smaller and more and more zeros will go on the right side of the decimal but there will always be some fraction of a whole in there. So you can't compress time down to zero. | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 92 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/19/2007 10:58:15 PM | the idea of a singularity can actually vary depending on which theory it is applied to. when talking about black holes a singularity as you mentioned exists at an infinitely small point at every point in time.....wheras in the case of the big bang, the singularity was all of space occupying a single point in time. But what does this mean in terms of the real world? Well, like you said, it doesn't make much sense, but luckily it doesnt have to in order for a theory to feed in these abstractions and churn out predictions that accurately describe how the universe works.....the reason for this is because almost all of the phenomena that we want to describe occurs outside of these limits.....and that's all that they are....limits....calculus cleverly shows us how integrating to upper of lower bounds of infinity can give us astonishingly precise observational answers about the real world.....but when infinities or nonsensical answers arise from the mathematics....its a signal that the theory is not being analyzed correctly and/or that it is anomalous....
With general relativity we are able to beautifully and accurately describe the universe from a scale of billions of light years away down to about 1/10 of a millimetre...in these ranges, gravity reigns supreme over the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces whose strengths quickly drop....at distances smaller than this the effects of gravity gradually become weaker and weaker all the while the other 3 forces become more and more prevalent until their effects completely drown out gravity until it can for all intents and purposes be ignored....at these distances and all the way down to as short as a million trillionth of a metre also known as the weak scale energy (because this is the energy scale required to probe matter at these distances)....particle physics and quantum mechanics make predictions that are accurate to a startling degree here....but as physicist begin probing below these distances and all the way down to 10E-33 metres....also known as the planck scale energy....something happens.....the force of gravity becomes relevant again and the energy required to probe distances this small are so incredibly high that the very fabric of space and time become stretched and torn....the reasons for this can be explained by the uncertainty principle and are not particularly interesting....what is interesting is that if gravity is relevant as well as the other 3 forces then we have a standoff....do you use general relativity or quantum mechanics or both as the basis for the physics of these distances? well, as it turns out, neither one nor the other make predictions that make any sense at the planck scale.....they both churn out infinities....which means that neither theory can reconcile prediction with the real world to any degree of accuracy....this is where theories such as superstring theory, quantum gravity, gauge theory, supersymmetry and others represent our best effort to date to explain what happens at these distances.....so far however, none of them are very close at describing the universe in terms of what we observe every day....
but again, the good thing is that since nearly all of the phenomena that we can observe in our universe occur outside of these horizons and singularities we are able to use our physics to create cell phones, computers, ipods, microwaves...and generally carry on with life and co-exist with these infinities without letting them get in our way in the least....until we start asking questions about black holes and big bangs and such... | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/21/2007 11:11:07 AM | ^^Very nice summation of our need for the reconciliatory string theory...
...so the equations that work are the ones without the inifities...so who cares about the ones with the infinities, we have cell phones and i pods any way, plus we can make planes fly and build bridges that don't break...haha...that's a very Hawkings-esque viewpoint I think. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 94 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/21/2007 2:49:12 PM | | The devil is in the details of the definition | |
|
ehsaas
|
Joined: 3/15/2007
Msg: 95 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/21/2007 4:21:57 PM | | Time is an intrument of comparsion and a relative scale to measure the difference between two actions. IT is the only variable that remains constant at the point of comparision, for an analogy , Think of a spining plate or a dish. when since form the top veiw the center most point in the plate is not moving at all, and just out side these circle being the secound most smallest circle seems to move much faster than the outer most rim of the plate. Yet to when we compare it with time , the period of each actions is contant and hence time gives us a scale of comparison of any action. moverover we can also see that even though the period or the frequency of each rotation is constant yet the velocity is of the cricle as one goes out the center changes. DOH! because the radius of the rim is get smallers when moving inwards. Than according to just velocity the plates is moving faster in the center than the out rim, yet the center most point of the rim is at zero velocity, as not action can take place and the radius is zero , hence the circumference if zero as well. Yet its not true. The outer most rim is travelling at the fatest speed cause its covering a larger distance with the same period than the center most smallest circle. Thus with this distinction we see that time is relative to the point of view, it depends on where one stand in space. So therefore time is dependant on space. To conclude cause i could go for ever, Time is method of comparions of any action taking placed with relative to space. TIME IS LOGIC TO SEE A DIFFERENCE THAT OCCURS>>>>>. | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 96 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/22/2007 12:05:41 AM | ...so the equations that work are the ones without the inifities
Absolutely....infinite quanties are the kiss of death for a theory...anomalies are also dealbreakers...one of the things that is sacred to a physicist is "symmetry"...in principle something is said to be symmetric some aspect if it looks the same after a transformation or action has been applied to it....a sphere observes rotational symmetry if it looks the same after being rotated along the x,y,z axes....a cylinder is symmetrical along the y axis because you can rotate it orthogonally to that axis and it will always look the same.. the concept of symmetry is so important because it can be applied to virtually anything; whether its real or abstract and in the last century its become clear that the laws of physics that best describe properties of nature are mathematically symmetric....meaning that transformations and operations can be applied to expressions in various contexts leaving them unchanged. What does this have to do with describing the properties of nature? Well for example, the early pioneers of field theories such a QED were plagued with infinities arising from renormalization. What they needed the right symmetry group that would correctly describe the transformations between various particles which in turn allowed them to identify the messenger particle of the field for that particular force. Theories that do not preserve symmetry are sometimes called anomalous. Meaning that they are incomplete or flawed and require further analysis. Symmetry breaking sometimes occurs as a result of calculating quantum effects arising from classical and virtual particle interactions. The bottom line is that generally speaking infinities and anomalies appear closely related to the overall symmetry of the theory whic in turn has so far impacted the ability of a theory to accurately describe nature....which in the end is the holy grail.
Theories can be flawed for many reason having to do with mathematic interpretations...for example, an immaginary numer is a number whose square is a negative real number. Meaning that when you take the square root of a number you get both a negative and postive number. Immaginary numbers work perfectly well in math not so well in nature. So when they arise from expressions they must be transformed in such a way as to be consistent with nature otherwise they will make predictions that do not make sense. For example, the potential energies that electrons can have are the square root of a value....so one possible solution set are electrons with negative energy and since matter and energy are equivalent they can be considered as having negative mass and if they had a negative mass the implication was that this is the same as a particle with a positive mass travelling backwards in time....clearly this was a problem because no one had ever observed such a particle....the solution was that these negative electrons were actually not electrons at all, but rather their antiparticle counterpart whose correct physical description was a particle with the same mass but negative charge......this is an example of a theory making a testable prediction and it is one of the keys to the success of a theory. So when antiparticles were first theoretically predicted, no one knew if they existed. Years later they were observed in particle chamber experiments...
what is clear is that there is undeniable evidence that nature can be described mathematically, however, mathematic abstractions that do not map to reality get in the way of describing it. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/22/2007 6:43:14 PM | | I’m perplexed on the different opinions about “what is time?” I think EHSAAS has done the best objective description of it. Here is my condensed explanation: Time is a measuring scale to quantify a rate of change; time alone does not have any significant meaning nor have any physical representation; it’s an ‘abstraction’. Also, the application of time is always based on a given frame of reference, in other words is relative. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/23/2007 10:42:19 PM | There are a variety of beliefs about time. Some feel it is an illusion. Others, like Aristotle and Sir Isaac Newton, believed in absolute time. The latter believed the measure of the interval of time between two occurring events would be the same no matter who measured it using the same time device.
The Newtonian conception of time doesn't work well with things moving close to the speeds of light.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity created a new definition of time in that it was always relative to the observer and never absolute as defined by Aristotle and Newton. This definition always paired time with space, because there was no differentiation between the coordinates of the two.
Since the introduction of quantum physics (and I don't remember when that was), even Einstein's relativity definition needs updated. Now many scientists, like some spiritual leaders of the past, feel time is an illusion and past, present, and future are, in essence, really all one.
In summary, for real every day events we can understand time in the Newtonian practical sense. For things moving very fast approaching the speed of light, we consider time relative only to a specific observer and always pair it with space. And finally, with regard to quantum physics and some spiritual leaders, time is merely a fiction of our minds and does not have a reality. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/23/2007 10:58:31 PM | | i beg to differ, motion is an attempt to measure time....time is the moment, passed & future are projections of mind.......while you grieve, aim, dream, reminisce - everything in & about you goes smoothly along with the moment, just like everything else....naught is passed, naught is future, all is present only.....flick a light switch - light lives entirely in the moment & cannot be bottled for future use, merely reproduced.....lol, the fundamental duality we each share, reside & function in is time & distance - and the concept of motion, being a combination of these two, is the binding third over this duality - the esoteric & religious trinity, the three (that are two) that are one......imo, lol | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/23/2007 11:04:21 PM | | oh ya, our current & linear definition of 'infinity' is but a derivation of the concept 'distance', while our current & somewhat rotary definition of eternity is but a derivation of the concept now....the concepts here & now are the infinite & the eternal actually, which is where the moment resides....fate is passed cycles initiated leading up to now, while we have been granted freewill precisely in the moment to decide what fates our futures will see......lol, time to start taking responsibility for your actions | |
|
|
| Page 4 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 