Time

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Let’s consider two virtual atoms, a nucleus and a single electron. One orbit is one tick.
Moving atom does one tick, stationary does two ticks. Does the electron of the moving atom move slower?

Given the information, it would seem so.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

yes, I think so, you are nearly as good at writing like this as I am.
Time is like an invented overlay on the universe used simply to obtain ‘co-ordinates’ for sequences of events or motions. But how such a thing could in reality affect a material clock would be a great mystery.
There needs to be a more mechanistic explanation for why clocks traveling at speed record slower measurements than clocks at rest.

There is a valid reason: transformation of coordinate systems. Poincare and Einstein both worked on this 100+ years ago and both came to the same conclusion: frames of reference matter for measurements.

If you start with the nature of reality and the ‘Oneness’ of everything, (some people won’t like that), and then decide logically and reasonably that everything has its origin and takes its nature from the expansion of the universe. Before the universe, presumably there was nothing, after the universe expanded there was everything.
So the universe is a closed system which contains everything. The only ‘new’ thing that the universe created when it expanded was the property or quality called ‘direction’.
Everything is now tied to the expansion of the universe and this new property ‘direction’.
A particle in any part of the universe is simply a continuing product of an expanding closed system.

Einstein and Poincare also came to the conclusion that space and time must be intertwined, and not just mathematically. If ‘direction’ was a new property, ‘duration’ was also a new property at the beginning of the universe. Without a sense of duration, direction is meaningless. Without duration, a particle just is at a point and not directed somewhere.

If you imagine the universe expanding as two hands pulling on the ends of a string then where the theoretical direction of both forces of the pulling hands meet in the string there you have created an elementary particle in the universe. The particles very existence is tied to the expansion of the universe.

This does not make sense.

Since this universe is a closed system you cannot create any extra energy as that would be the same as increasing the expansion rate of the universe, and that is already set as the universe is already in existence.

The rate at which the universe is expanding is indeed increasing (i.e., the universe is accelerating and not just expanding). And how does one create ‘extra energy?’ Everything that I know of physics (which is a lot, since it is my field), says that
E[sub]in[/sub] >= E[sub]out[/sub]
So where does creating ‘extra’ energy come in?

So if you add energy to a point particle and accelerate it it cannot remain unchanged totally within a closed system. A point particle is unlike a massive object. It cannot radiate away any extra energy as it is the simplest of point particles. All it can do in return for gaining this extra energy in acceleration is to lose proportionally some of its ‘internal motion’ , however you choose to view that substance or thing. The net effect is that the point particles nature loses some motion, this could be seen as an oscillating or resonating nature, which in turn translates upwards into higher more complex particles as a loss or slowing of signal or energy to radiate.

Your classic ‘point’ particles (proton, neutron, electron) can certainly radiate away photons. And, as far as my particle physics knowledge goes, I do believe that subatomic particles (quarks and the like) do radiate energy, in the form of other subatomic particles, as well. I would be happy to change my understanding of this if you have a reputable source that says otherwise. Since the particles all radiate, your ‘loss of internal motion’ concept is just plain lost.

So the more energy you place into a closed system to accelerate a point particle the more internal energy the point particle is forced to lose to conserve the Law of Conservation of Energy.

See the above.

So we see the reduced rate of radiation in an atomic clock as somehow the reduced flow of time. But of course we have confused an imaginary concept, time, with a material action which is itself bound and constrained to act logically and rationally within a closed system.

No, what we have is someone who fails to understand higher-level physics and extrapolates strange interpretations based under those musings. Your system is completely irrational (the faster you as a whole go, the slower your internals are thus time appears slower) and is contrary to Newton’s laws.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Given the information, it would seem so.

Good. Let’s add a frame of reference. Virtual stuff.
An observer sits at a table with a glass cube box - our frame of reference. There is the atom in the box and it ticks two times - two orbits in the y-z plane.
In the meantime the second atom is flying through the box and it ticks just once - one orbit in the y-z plane but the plane is moving along the x axis. The speeds are well below the speed of light so the observer can see both virtual atoms.

A similar question - does the electron of the moving atom move slower in the box frame of reference? What distance did the both electrons travel in the box frame of reference?

 

[englishredrose]

time does not exist. It is a concept created by man…

sorry if this has been already said in times gone by

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Good. Let’s add a frame of reference. Virtual stuff.
An observer sits at a table with a glass cube box - our frame of reference. There is the atom in the box and it ticks two times - two orbits in the y-z plane.
In the meantime the second atom is flying through the box and it ticks just once - one orbit in the y-z plane but the plane is moving along the x axis. The speeds are well below the speed of light so the observer can see both virtual atoms.

A similar question - does the electron of the moving atom move slower in the box frame of reference? What distance did the both electrons travel in the box frame of reference?

To be fair, there was a frame of reference in the previous question, so we are not really adding it, are we? Nor is the first question any different than previously asked. You also seem to be forgetting that perpendicular directions to the motion are not affected by the dilation, so then the stationary electron traveled two orbital-lengths while the moving electron traveled only the one.

 

[JerryZ]

as long as we’re thinking of time…

a meter is one meter in length. a square meter is one meter in length and one meter in width. a cubic meter is one meter in length, one meter in width, and one meter in height. since time is the fourth dimension, a tesserectic(4-D) meter must be one meter in length, one meter in width, one meter in height, and one meter in duration. This means that seconds are just another name for four-dimensional meters. So…

how many seconds are in a meter?

There you again! trying to use your tridimensional brain to wrap around a reality that is outside the realm it was supposed to work with.

You cannot define time with the same measurement units used for the other 3 dimensions, 1 meter of time is meaningless, I am sorry to inform you!

And nope, seconds are only a derived quantity for the frame of reference made up by the rotation of the Earth divided by a 60.
Rotation has this particularity of working well with the Hexadecimal system for some reason!

They bear no relation whatsoever to what the Dimension (Time) is measured expressed etc. because we just suffer or are slave to travel on IT and divide the intervals of progression in Earth seconds.
Remember mass changes the speed at which we travel through time, same as speed.
If we lived in planet twice as heavy as Earth that still rotated at the same rate 24Hr/Rev, the 1 sec there would not be the same as the one here.
Sounds complicated?

It is!

 

[pig]

There is a valid reason: transformation of coordinate systems. Poincare and Einstein both worked on this 100+ years ago and both came to the same conclusion: frames of reference matter for measurements.

Einstein believed in a static universe not an expanding universe. His ideas were based on a static universe. If the universe did not expand then something else had to give.

Einstein and Poincare also came to the conclusion that space and time must be intertwined, and not just mathematically. If ‘direction’ was a new property, ‘duration’ was also a new property at the beginning of the universe. Without a sense of duration, direction is meaningless. Without duration, a particle just is at a point and not directed somewhere.

There is no duration. Direction is not just a concept it is the building block of matter and energy. Duration is just a concept or abstraction.

This does not make sense.

It does with imagination not with reaction. Where do elementary particles get their energy. How do they maintain their energy. And why does their energy not just explode or fizzle away.

The rate at which the universe is expanding is indeed increasing (i.e., the universe is accelerating and not just expanding). And how does one create ‘extra energy?’ Everything that I know of physics (which is a lot, since it is my field), says that
E[sub]in[/sub] >= E[sub]out[/sub]
So where does creating ‘extra’ energy come in?

I just said the opposite. That you cannot create extra energy. But you can apply energy from one area to another area.

Your classic ‘point’ particles (proton, neutron, electron) can certainly radiate away photons. And, as far as my particle physics knowledge goes, I do believe that subatomic particles (quarks and the like) do radiate energy, in the form of other subatomic particles, as well. I would be happy to change my understanding of this if you have a reputable source that says otherwise. Since the particles all radiate, your ‘loss of internal motion’ concept is just plain lost.

These are all large complex particles. The point particle I am talking about is just that, the point where all particle are pulled apart releasing their stored energy and you finally come to one point that cannot be ‘pulled’ any smaller. It is the point at which all other particles begin to assume their origin.

See the above.

This point particle is very difficult to explain. It is simply the meeting point of all directions pulled by the expanding universe. It has nothing to radiate away if you apply energy to it like acceleration. It is like a slider switch, move the slider switch to the right to represent applied energy and you find that there is less room on the right side of the switch, which represents the internal motion or speed of this particle.

No, what we have is someone who fails to understand higher-level physics and extrapolates strange interpretations based under those musings. Your system is completely irrational (the faster you as a whole go, the slower your internals are thus time appears slower) and is contrary to Newton’s laws.

No laws apply here except cause and effect in their purest and simplest form. A closed system with an ideal point which cannot radiate energy applied to it can be accelerated if it looses proportionally some of its internal momentum, motion, energy or whatever you want to call it.

Again, the idea that an imaginary construct like time can materially slow a material object like a clock is the only strange theory I see here.

 

[Jaaanosik]

To be fair, there was a frame of reference in the previous question, so we are not really adding it, are we? Nor is the first question any different than previously asked.** You also seem to be forgetting that perpendicular directions to the motion are not affected by the dilation,** so then the stationary electron traveled two orbital-lengths while the moving electron traveled only the one.

True if we go by definition that the time is measured by ticks - orbits.
That was the frame of reference in the first example.

I am trying to introduce another frame of reference (box) and come up with another definition of time - distance traveled in the box frame of the reference.

I’d like to discuss how are these two different time definitions related.
Believe me, there is much more to that than it seems.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Einstein believed in a static universe not an expanding universe. His ideas were based on a static universe. If the universe did not expand then something else had to give.

No, you are conflating two different ideas: general relativity and special relativity. It is SR that is giving us the time dilation effects, it is GR that gives us the static universe versus the expanding one.

There is no duration. Direction is not just a concept it is the building block of matter and energy. Duration is just a concept or abstraction.

If there is no duration, then I can just go backwards in time, right?

It does with imagination not with reaction. Where do elementary particles get their energy. How do they maintain their energy. And why does their energy not just explode or fizzle away.

I agree that it takes quite an imagination to make up something like what you have been poorly promoting. Elementary particles get their energy from parent particles, once they move slow enough they too will decay and give off energy to their daughter particles. They often do not maintain their energy and it does indeed ‘fizzle away.’

I just said the opposite. That you cannot create extra energy. But you can apply energy from one area to another area.

My question was relating to the fact that you made up the ‘extra energy’ argument without anyone doing so.

These are all large complex particles. The point particle I am talking about is just that, the point where all particle are pulled apart releasing their stored energy and you finally come to one point that cannot be ‘pulled’ any smaller. It is the point at which all other particles begin to assume their origin.

So you are inventing a new particle? And some new type of physics?

This point particle is very difficult to explain. It is simply the meeting point of all directions pulled by the expanding universe. It has nothing to radiate away if you apply energy to it like acceleration. It is like a slider switch, move the slider switch to the right to represent applied energy and you find that there is less room on the right side of the switch, which represents the internal motion or speed of this particle.

It is difficult to explain because it has no physical reality to it. The colloquial point particles are electrons and other sub-atomic particles. You are taking a well known word that has a well-known definition and using it to mean something you just made up. In fact, it looks more like you are calling a point particle just a position in discrete space and not continuous space.

No laws apply here except cause and effect in their purest and simplest form. A closed system with an ideal point which cannot radiate energy applied to it can be accelerated if it looses proportionally some of its internal momentum, motion, energy or whatever you want to call it.

First, Newton’s laws are the result of cause and effect. Second, laws of physics apply everywhere or else the universe could not exist. Third, your ideal points are more like discrete spatial points and not physical “point” particles. Fourth, your ideal points do not contain internal energy because they are just positions in space. Fifth, real “point” particles do emit radiation when accelerated (see Brehmsstrahlung radiation, for instance).

Again, the idea that an imaginary construct like time can materially slow a material object like a clock is the only strange theory I see here.

Your whole theory is strange and completely at odds with reality. Your theory suggests that the faster you move, the slower you are going. It is incomprehensible how you do not see this and continue to argue for such an absurd theory.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

True if we go by definition that the time is measured by ticks - orbits.
That was the frame of reference in the first example.

I am trying to introduce another frame of reference (box) and come up with another definition of time - distance traveled in the box frame of the reference.

I’d like to discuss how are these two different time definitions related.
Believe me, there is much more to that than it seems.

What you want is the Lorentz transformation (link is to the wiki page). This relates position and time of two different observers of the same event (which is how SR is usually treated, not 1 observer & 2 events).

 

[pig]

No, you are conflating two different ideas: general relativity and special relativity. It is SR that is giving us the time dilation effects, it is GR that gives us the static universe versus the expanding one.

If there is no duration, then I can just go backwards in time, right?

I agree that it takes quite an imagination to make up something like what you have been poorly promoting. Elementary particles get their energy from parent particles, once they move slow enough they too will decay and give off energy to their daughter particles. They often do not maintain their energy and it does indeed ‘fizzle away.’

My question was relating to the fact that you made up the ‘extra energy’ argument without anyone doing so.

So you are inventing a new particle? And some new type of physics?

It is difficult to explain because it has no physical reality to it. The colloquial point particles are electrons and other sub-atomic particles. You are taking a well known word that has a well-known definition and using it to mean something you just made up. In fact, it looks more like you are calling a point particle just a position in discrete space and not continuous space.

First, Newton’s laws are the result of cause and effect. Second, laws of physics apply everywhere or else the universe could not exist. Third, your ideal points are more like discrete spatial points and not physical “point” particles. Fourth, your ideal points do not contain internal energy because they are just positions in space. Fifth, real “point” particles do emit radiation when accelerated (see Brehmsstrahlung radiation, for instance).

Your whole theory is strange and completely at odds with reality. Your theory suggests that the faster you move, the slower you are going. It is incomprehensible how you do not see this and continue to argue for such an absurd theory.

The ideal point is not only a position in space, because that is just an abstract idea on its own, it is where the direction from all points of an expanding universe meet. So the point, wherever it is, has the energy of the expanding universe. Its very difficult.
At some point in reality things do become very simple and reasonable.
But time is just a measurement like the word ounces or drams are words of measurement. The word time does not know anything about clocks and cannot slow a clock any more than the word ounce can. And an ounce cannot speed up your cooking either.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The ideal point is not only a position in space, because that is just an abstract idea on its own, it is where the direction from all points of an expanding universe meet.

This is nonsensical.

So the point, wherever it is, has the energy of the expanding universe. Its very difficult.

It is not really that difficult. Physicists have long been promoting the vacuum energy, which is basically the energy that a position in space contains.

At some point in reality things do become very simple and reasonable.

Huh? Nothing of what you said was either simple or reasonable.

But time is just a measurement like the word ounces or drams are words of measurement. The word time does not know anything about clocks and cannot slow a clock any more than the word ounce can. And an ounce cannot speed up your cooking either.

Ounces and drams refer to physical quantities! If time is not a physical quantity, then neither are they!

 

[pig]

This is nonsensical.

It is not really that difficult. Physicists have long been promoting the vacuum energy, which is basically the energy that a position in space contains.

Huh? Nothing of what you said was either simple or reasonable.

Ounces and drams refer to physical quantities! If time is not a physical quantity, then neither are they!

you think time is a physical quantity?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

you think time is a physical quantity?

Absolutely. It fits the definition to a T:

A physical quantity is a physical property of a phenomenon, body, or substance, that can be quantified by measurement.

Disagree with physical property? Look at the definition of that:

A physical property is any attribute that is measurable whose value describes a physical system’s state.

Time is definitely a physical quantity.

 

[pig]

A physical property is any attribute that is measurable whose value describes a physical system’s state.

But it isn’t measurable because time isn’t an attribute of matter, time is a co-ordinate system with no physical quantity.

 

[JerryZ]

There is a valid reason: transformation of coordinate systems. Poincare and Einstein both worked on this 100+ years ago and both came to the same conclusion: frames of reference matter for measurements.
The rate at which the universe is expanding is indeed increasing (i.e., the universe is *accelerating* and not just expanding). And how does one create 'extra energy?' Everything that I know of physics (which is a lot, since it is my field), says that E[sub]in[/sub] >= E[sub]out[/sub] So where does creating 'extra' energy come in?

Ok, since you are conversant and understand physics may be you have overlooked something.

The Big Bang we know happened 13.7 Billion years give or take, a force decided to act to effect the reaction that set in motion the expansion of the Universe.

Well what if that force has not ceased acting?

Under constant acceleration the universe will continue to increase it’s speed of expansion unless that Force stops acting.

This force is what they are calling “Dark Energy” which by the way every one is trying to further define and detect.

But certainly it’s effects are there, because as you stated the Universe IS expanding at an increasing speed.

 

[Jaaanosik]

What you want is the Lorentz transformation (link is to the wiki page). This relates position and time of two different observers of the same event (which is how SR is usually treated, not 1 observer & 2 events).

Well, I don’t think I want Lorentz transformation. It’s not going to answer the following questions.

I know the answers but think about it.
Why we do not adjust clocks on the Earth according to GPS satellites? I know this one is silly.

Here comes another one: Why we do not get out the Sun-stationery satellites and we do not adjust the clocks on the Earth according to them?
Even better, let’s assume there is the Sun-stationery space station out there with people and each year the Earth comes back to it. Who ages faster? People on the Earth or on the space station?

How many frame references ‘higher’ we can go?

 

[JDaniel]

But it isn’t measurable because time isn’t an attribute of matter, time is a co-ordinate system with no physical quantity.

Pig:

That is a very interesting and important statement. In essence what you are saying is that time is correlative with motion. Without any motion whatsoever, there is no time. And, I suppose the opposite could be said, without time, there is no motion. I agree with you that time is not a property of matter. I’m not so sure “motion” is a property of matter either.

Also, in the sense that “direction” was created with the Big Bang, I agree in that motion is in the path of potency → through the act of the potential → finalizing in (that) act (which terminates the motion). Thus, we can move backward only under the species of local motion as it is merely a separate forward motion.

Very interesting!

God bless,
jd

 

[Jaaanosik]

Pig:

That is a very interesting and important statement. In essence what you are saying is that time is correlative with motion. Without any motion whatsoever, there is no time. And, I suppose the opposite could be said, without time, there is no motion. I agree with you that time is not a property of matter. I’m not so sure “motion” is a property of matter either.

Also, in the sense that “direction” was created with the Big Bang, I agree in that motion is in the path of potency → through the act of the potential → finalizing in (that) act (which terminates the motion). Thus, we can move backward only under the species of local motion as it is merely a separate forward motion.

Very interesting!

God bless,
jd

Dan,
There is no matter without motion. The matter arises because of motion. The speed, distance, time/duration can not be separated.
Jano

 

[JDaniel]

Dan,
There is no matter without motion. The matter arises because of motion. The speed, distance, time/duration can not be separated.
Jano

Jaaanosik:

I would point you to Primary Matter as I see you are a Catholic. Primary Matter has an appetite for motion, but does not have motion intrinsically. Further, a sleeping cat is primarily and properly motionless, i.e., in terms of place. That it is respiring and digesting a recently eaten meal, is essentially accidental to its state of rest. We must be careful that we don’t confuse the accidental with the substantial and intrinsic.

A stone that rolls down an embankment and comes to a stop at the bottom is at rest. That its internal parts are in motion is accidental to it. At absolute zero, even those internal parts will more than likely be immobile.

God bless,
jd