What is time?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: What is time?

Unread postby junglelord » Fri May 16, 2008 6:53 pm

Solar wrote:
junglelord wrote:Certainly Tesla spent a life time playing with the reality of harmonic resonance, and you think its all in your mind?
:lol:


Do you favor the below quote because it alludes to a difference between 'reality' as the the perception of Reality?
Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."


No, because it represents the truth that the quantum spin totality is not everything we see, it is however measured. We see only 1/4 of that spin as 1/2 spin sub atomic particles and half that world with 1 spin of photons. Therefore we see only half with light, there is however a dark side of equal value unseen, but measured.
Last edited by junglelord on Fri May 16, 2008 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: What is time?

Unread postby bboyer » Fri May 16, 2008 6:54 pm

The question was not, is not, "Is time real?" but "What is time?" I think that has been answered quite succinctly by several. But I also think one woud have to stop thinking about it (i.e. still one's mind, quitting all thoughts, letting the mind settle like clear, undisturbed water), if only for an instant of time ;) to really get it.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: What is time?

Unread postby junglelord » Fri May 16, 2008 6:59 pm

It should be noted at least two people said time was an illusion. Hence to them the question, what is time, has no meaning.
I tried to give it meaning, I hope I am one of the people who answered with some logic as to that possible explanation.
:geek:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: What is time?

Unread postby bboyer » Fri May 16, 2008 7:12 pm

That would be for another thread in its own right, the illusion thing. What's unreal about an illusion? While an illusion may not be what it is purported to be, in one very real sense we all could be said to be immersed in various degrees and extremes of willing and unwilling illusion. :lol:
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: What is time?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat May 17, 2008 5:49 am

arc-us wrote:That would be for another thread in its own right, the illusion thing. What's unreal about an illusion? While an illusion may not be what it is purported to be, in one very real sense we all could be said to be immersed in various degrees and extremes of willing and unwilling illusion. :lol:


Exactly. Jiddu Krishnamurti, friend and collaborator of David Bohm, said everything is an illusion and while I understand where he was coming from I asked the same question as you: 'What's unreal about an illusion?' A brick wall is real but its solidity is an illusion.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: What is time?

Unread postby Solar » Sat May 17, 2008 6:42 am

Well, I still say that you people are brilliant in you own right. There are some great points of view/ideas and perhaps 'fundamental phenomena' just don't lend themselves to being easily defined in terms of 'What they are'? Physics still has problems with terms/concepts such 'Mass', 'Charge', 'Particle', 'Particle-Wave' etc and I'd presume that they debate amongst themselves in like manner regarding 'What they are'.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: What is time?

Unread postby junglelord » Sat May 17, 2008 11:00 am

I think the illusion, to be correctly stated, is that linear time is the only time there is. Space resonace is the result of two frequency domains. In the macro scale we see linear time, space-time, and so it appears as the only frequency domain, but at the quantum scale space-resonace is reveled with two frequency attributes, linear and distributed. Together these two frequencies, linear frequency and distributed frequency, create a spherical unit of resonance. These are two fundamental units of the fabric of reality. Also quantum constants in APM.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: What is time?

Unread postby shrunkensimon » Mon May 26, 2008 6:20 am

Solar wrote:
Heftruck wrote:
Solar wrote:"Time", is a mental construct to quantify the duration of events.


Which can be measured by frequency.

Oscillations, of the duration of phenomena, per unit of "Time" as defined by committee or machine does not make "Time" a substance nor the substance of the phenomena so observed. It is merely a way to conceptually relate to the phenomena.


I agree with this statement completely, and i think Solar has the correct perspective 8-)

Time is only a concept, not a reality. When you talk about time, it really is in the realm of metaphysics and not physics. There are two schools of thought on what time is essentially.. you have the "Roman Catholic" system as i like to refer to it, and you have the unbranded system of time that some indigenous peoples use/used (for example, the Mayans). The Roman Catholic system is mechanical and tries to relate "time" to relative spatial phenomina, such as the Earth going round the Sun. The other system, treats time as something totally beyond the physical, a spiritual quality if you will.

Time is direcly related to consciousness, period. You either see it, or you have yet to realize IMHO :D
shrunkensimon
Guest
 

Re: What is time?

Unread postby StevenO » Mon May 26, 2008 6:39 am

There can be no physics without time. Time makes space observable. Question could only be how many time dimensions we need to correctly describe action in our space dimensions. Using less time dimensions than space dimension makes us observe only the shadow of the real events. That would probably be a proper qualification of the wave-particle and relativity confusion...
Last edited by StevenO on Mon May 26, 2008 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: What is time?

Unread postby shrunkensimon » Mon May 26, 2008 6:45 am

When has anyone ever observed "space"..

Space (and time) is a concept, not a reality. I would also like to add that this makes Einsteins "space-time" suspect :D
shrunkensimon
Guest
 

Re: What is time?

Unread postby StevenO » Mon May 26, 2008 7:12 am

shrunkensimon wrote:When has anyone ever observed "space"..

Space (and time) is a concept, not a reality. I would also like to add that this makes Einsteins "space-time" suspect :D

Space must be real otherwise we would'nt be discussing it ;) The correct dimension of charge is actually space. The action in this space can only be observed by using a time dimension too to make changes visible (differentiable). However, we should use one time dimension per space dimension, otherwise we are projecting reality into our restricted (Einstein) space-time view, leading to very poorly understood effects.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: What is time?

Unread postby lizzie » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:25 am

A good reference tool on various theories about TIME

TIME – The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/time.htm
lizzie
Guest
 

To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby altonhare » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:48 pm

How can we objectively conceptualize time? Firstly, time is a concept invented by people. In conceptualizing time we must ask what a person "sees" in different scenarios. We will rely on light to relay information between the universe and an observer. We will also take for granted light's "discrete" nature. That is, it comes in individual bits that have a frequency and wavelength. So let's look at a scenario with one observer and one object emitting light.

Lets make a picture of a person looking at a sphere that is stationary to him and represent the individual light signals as dashes:

0-----------------------O-|-<

The important thing to note is that the person does not always "see" the sphere. The person sees the sphere ONLY when a photon passes his location. Essentially, the observer perceives the object in "frames" like in a movie. The universe looks choppy and separated like a flipbook unless the signals are fast and frequent, in which case it's a matter of the internal machinations of the observer that determine how it "looks". Now, what can the observer do to learn about the universe? The observer could count light signals to count frames, then he would know how many light signals have been transmitted since he began viewing the sphere. This is a beginning of the conception of time. However, without a reference standard, all the observer has is a quantity of signals. To conceptualize time, we need motion. Now, if the sphere moves, what happens? In the following pictures I represent the sphere moving away from the observer constantly and rectilinearly. First, the sphere moves some finite distance, then a photon is emitted:

0- ---------O-|-<

Then the sphere moves some finite distance and a photon is emitted by the sphere and one terminates at the observer:

0- - --------O-|-<

And so on:

0- - - - - - - - --O-|-<

0- - - - - - - - - -O-|-<

The observer in the last picture is "seeing" and counting the last photon that was emitted when the sphere was stationary. The question is, will the observer notice that the photons are spaced further apart, which is to ask the question "Does the observer notice the motion?" The answer is an emphatic "no". The ONLY way the observer can perceive his universe is by counting photons. There is nothing "in between" photons. He is still just counting, unaware that the number of signals in the distance between him and the sphere has changed.

So how do we conceptualize time and what does this have to do with SR? The observer conceptualizes time by COMPARING photon counts between two objects in motion. Furthermore, a third stationary object is needed as a distance standard. The observer sets up a racetrack that goes from himself to a big X. Two objects move at constant speed from the observer to the X, two spheres of different size A and B. The observer counts the number of photons emitted by A as it moves from himself to the X and the number of photons emitted by B as it moves from himself to X. If A emits 10 photons and B emits 5 then B moved twice as fast as A. The observer can now conceptualize time in terms of photon counts and a distance standard (here to X). It is important to emphasize that time is the observer's conceptualization. The spheres are actually wherever they are independent of the observer. Photons act as an intermediary. Therefore, time is defined in terms of observed "frames". A frame is the most fundamental unit of time the observer can conceptualize. How long did it take for A to get to B? "10 frames!" the observer replies. How long did it take C to get to B? "5 frames!" the observer replies using his photon clock. This is an absolutely correct and consistent way for the observer to "time" things. It's also important to repeat that a single "frame" (single photon) is the fundamental unit of time. If the observer cannot count a single photon (i.e. if an object is moving at c or faster) then the observer cannot conceptualize time. The object does not fly around making the person younger because the observer can no longer quantify time for the object.

Another significant thing to note in the previous scenario is that we assumed the perceived FREQUENCY that light was emitted would change, not its speed. That is to say, the spacing between light signals changes when an object moves away (doppler shift). We assumed light to have a constant speed (consistent with our real-world observation). We could just as well have assumed that the spacing between light signals was constant and that the speed of light were variable (inconsistent with real-world observation). The equation c=f*w is certainly illustrative. Light has an on/off pattern so there must be some number of "ons" per distance and some length over which it is "on". The length of the signals and the number of them per distance are fundamentally inversely related. So, the speed of light *must* be constant. The crux of the matter is exactly this. The Newtonian equations imply that c varies as needed to maintain f and w constant as a photon emitter moves relative to a stationary observer. C can take on arbitrarily large values here. This simplifies observation and calculation greatly and leads to little error in normal situations.

That's it! SR just makes C a constant in c=f*w as it should be! It's that simple. "Time dilation" is just the difference in the number of frames the observer calculates if he assumes frequency is constant and the number of frames the observer calculates if he assumes the speed of light is a constant. Nothing actually changes physically! If we used a photon counter to gauge time we would always get the "right" answer (SR answer) from the beginning without a single equation! Still don't believe me?

Let's take an example where we count "frames" (photons) under Newton's assumptions and Einstein's. An airplane is flying by a bird. The plane is going 500 m/s and the bird 10 m/s. A photon counter at 500 nm turns on the instant the plane passes the bird and counts 500 nm photons for each object as it moves one meter. This scenario is conceptually identical to the diagram above. However, first we'll assume the opposite of what's illustrated above. Namely, we'll first assume the speed of light is variable as implied by Newton's equations of motion. For simplicity we'll take 3E8 (300000000 m/s) as c. The light emitted from the airplane is moving to the detector at 299999500 (3E8-500) m/s. The light emitted from the bird is moving at 299999990 (3E8-10) m/s. The light from each has frequency 600E12 photons/s. It is trivial to calculate total photons (frames) in each case. The plane takes 2.000003333E6 frames to traverse the meter and the bird takes 2.000000067E6 frames. This is what the detector will count if c is variable.

Now let's assume c is a constant 3E8 m/s. We take the above scenario except now the frequency of 500 nm is "doppler shifted" to use familiar language. The plane's photons have f=599.999E12 photons/sec. The bird's have f=599.99998E12 photons/sec. Again it is trivial to calculate the frames. The plane takes 1.999996667E6 frames and the bird takes 1.999999933E6 frames. Summary below:

How Much Longer Does it Take a Bird to Traverse a Meter Than a Plane?
Variable C (Newtonian): Bird takes 3.266 more frames to traverse a meter
Constant C (Relativistic): Bird takes 3.266 more frames to traverse a meter

It's the same! As long as you choose your method, Newt or Rel, nothing "dilates". A plane will beat a bird by EXACTLY the same amount under both relativity AND classical newtonian physics!

How Much Longer Does a Newtonian Bird or Plane Take to Traverse a Meter Than a Relativistic Bird or Plane?
Bird(Newtonian-Relativistic): 0.134 frames
Airplane(Newtonian-Relativistic): 6.66 frames

And here is what is being termed "time dilation" or "time travel". Newt just deviates more from Rel at higher speeds. That's all. The relativistic equations calculate the Newtonian time then add in a "relativistic correction" that is nonlinear. People claim that the object travels through time because it moves quickly! Complete nonsense. As shown above, the plane beat the bird by exactly the same amount no matter which way we did it. Nothing physically changed. The plane was the same distance ahead of the bird either way.

Do we dilate time because we make different assumptions!? In actuality, special relativity does not "predict" time dilation at all. An object traverses a distance faster than another EXACTLY THE SAME UNDER RELATIVITY AS NEWTONIAN PHYSICS. Do we "dilate time" because one method deviates from another (incorrect method) more at higher speeds??? "Time travel" is patently absurd and a logical impossibility. The definition of time implied by SR is purely based on how many photons we detect and not on some vague "flow of time":

Time: The difference in the number of light signals emitted by an object A (NA) that traversed a distance D to the different number of light signals emitted by an object B (NB) that traversed D. The light signals from A and B must have identical frequency when A and B are stationary.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby Plasmatic » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:19 pm

HI Alton ,

I thought you would enjoy this:

http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:07 am

Thank you for that link, Plasmatic, however I have a number of problems with the author's assertions.

"To perceive a thing is to perceive that it exists. To perceive a thing is to perceive that it is something."

"Existence exists: there are things. Existence is identity: to be is to be something: things are what they are. (which is the law of identity) Consciousness is identification: to be conscious is to be conscious of existence."

When you look at something you are not perceiving that it exists. You are simply absorbing light signals. The object exists independent of you. If you touch it, you are not perceiving existence, your hand is simply colliding with an object that already exists. Perception has nothing to do with existence, they are entirely separate. When we discuss existence in terms of our own perception we are learning nothing about what is. We learn only about what we perceive.

Object: That which has a shape, a contour, can be distinguished from that which surrounds it, can be distinguished from that which it is not
Concrete Object: An object that exists.
Exist: Physical Presence
Physical: Has a shape, a contour, can be distinguished from that which surrounds it, can be distinguished from that which it is not
Presence: Location. The conceptually static gap between the object and every other object referred to as distance.

A concrete object has shape and location all by itself. Not a single living entity need ever have been formed anywhere in the universe for concrete objects to have shape and location. Therefore, existence is a concept utterly and completely divorced from perception.

Additionally, I disagree that time is a measure of existence. We don't measure existence. An object simply exists or does not. You do not measure or quantify such a concept, it is simply defined by virtue of usage consistency. Time is, in effect, a synonym of causality. The object is there, then it is there, then it is there. If an object is subsequently at A, B, and C then, the next time the object is at A it must again subsequently be at B and C. If it is not we must conclude that there is something about A that has changed. This is as the author points out. Under special relativity the speed of light is assumed perfectly constant, inviolate, and a perfect reference standard for time; this is as pointed out in my post. Obviously light cannot be because, if an object were to travel faster than light, we would not be able to quantify time for it. The "light standard" itself breaks down at the speed of light, which Einstein mistakenly took to conclude that it was simply fundamentally impossible for an object to travel beyond C. The author's discussion of causality and temporal reference standards was very interesting and I enjoyed reading it. I wish more people would stop swallowing modern physics' outrageous claims and just sit down with a pen and paper and do some logic, all on their own. I think my generation is comprised mostly of sheep!

So don't get me wrong, even though I disagree with some of the semantics and definitions, maybe its a misunderstanding on my part, but ultimately the author's main points (causality, time using an absolute reference, the requirement of common units, etc.) are very good. The author hits the nail on the head. If only many more people would read and understand this type of thing, we could finally banish this silly notion of time travel from people's minds and stop spending money funding fantasy!
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests