Are there different kinds of time in the universe? We hear about the arrow of time which always 'points' in the same direction, but "where" is it pointing? And that entropy always increases--there is more room being created for events to occur, so more events occur and the universe contains more information "now" than it did "then". Is time, locally speaking, something that always vanishes from any coordinate system? Does this imply that time is 'lost' because we can only determine periodic motion up to what we call precision, so we can only build (pairs of) clocks which will move periodically up to this precision, and which will then only be accurate (move at the same rate) to this degree? Since we can't build 'exact' pairs of clocks and measure time 'precisely', then by definition, time, and timing, is something we have already lost--the precision/accuracy gap in measurement. Time vanishes as soon as you measure it. This lost information corresponds to gravitational intrinsic entropy, doesn't it?
It's a funny thing, this arrow of time ~ I can understand why these are normally questions which are shrouded with a lot of confusion... like, is there such a thing as a physical arrow of time? If there is an arrow, where does it point? Normally we might think it's points from some spatial origin which would mark the center of the universe, but no such center exists, unless you consider there are an infinite amount of centers, in which case, every spacetime point marks the center of the universe. From what I have read, there maybe no such a thing as a true physical arrow. If anything, when we talk about an arrow of time, we talk about the apparent directionality of the universe, a tendancy for the universe to evolve to a specific set of rules which apparently fall forward in time. And I have never heard of time vanishing, unless one appreciates the Wheeler deWitt equation, as an equation which apparently shows no relativistic case of time.
But doesn't time vanish because it "goes somewhere"? What happens when, or why do, we multiply time by velocity? Does time still exist after this "operation" that converts it into a distance? Is Time the only Euclidean "thing" in existence? It seems to correspond to a one-dimensional real line of arbitrary numbers, extending backwards and forwards from "now"... (I think this is referred to as real time).
?? When you look at a clock, what time is it? Why do the hands keep moving, shouldn't they stop when you "fix" the time? If not, how can the time you saw the clock showing, be the time "now"? The clock shows a different time than when you last looked at it, right? What happened? Where did the difference come from, or why can't you determine what the time is "now"? If you want to "do" a Lorentz transformation of coordinates, time is multiplied by a velocity, so now you have four distance measurements, one of which corresponds to ct. What happens to the 't' in that case?
What are you talking about? A clock on the wall does not make time a vacuum vector, no more in stopping the hands of the clock effect real time measurements. Time does not disappear. Time is the present, the here and now - in the process of everything, not a clock on the wall. And because of this, I very much can determine what time it is, during any present frame of my existence, so long as I have an efficient clock as to use as a means of measuring such a duration.
So you are asking does time exist? So you are asking does time exist? Or is the past, present & future all happening together? Im curious to understand why time is 'delayed' when orbiting a black hole Will investigate... kthanxbye
You're saying time doesn't go anywhere. I'm saying that measuring time does make it go somewhere--in the direction opposite to vanishing time, or if you like, time vanishes into the past. But what about the "there and then"? Because clocks exist, you can measure "duration"? I thought I said that already. This is how most of us understand the "flow" of time...
Time does not vanish. Only in frames of reference, can we state time does not exist, for instance, from a photons point of view, if it had one of course. No such thing as a true ''there and then''. It's nothing but the psychological makeup, and i would imagine, how it arises from a memory, a distinction between the now, and one which resides as memory.
Ok time always exists, it doesn't disappear. But in order to explain why there seems to be a "past" time, we need to invoke some rationalisation: therefore I can state that past time exists because we measure it. We can't physically measure "now", only get close to it (up to say, the Heisenberg limit). The reason we predict that "future" time exists, is because we know about the difference between past--because that's the time we record--and present. Try this thought experiment: assume you have two identical clocks. They are not synchronised. Suppose now you synchronise them (this requires that you do work on one of them, say), does either clock now "remember" the work you did, or the time it took you to do it? (Remember, this experiment involves thinking, it's a thought experiment).
Einstein believed that he had done away with the idea of an absolute time, and also of absolute 'position'. That is, no coordinates in spacetime are unique, and no local time is absolute (since, if it's local, it can't also be global at the same, er, time). The removal of the observer was another claim he made. The observer in the Einsteinian frame, is "that which remembers the past". But, there is no past, or future in any local frame, there is only now. The "observer" has to synchronise with local time--thus "losing" time. So observation (for observers) is inextricably tied to this "flow" of time, along what looks like a straight line. Just like R, there are an uncountable number of small, or infinitesimal "other times" close to any "now". All observers can do is "watch" a local clock, but are unable to get closer than this small neighbourhood of "now". At some scale, the idea of neighbourhood must become meaningless, and it will be impossible to distinguish "now" from an infinitude of values which are all close to it, just like any value on R has such an infinitude of values close to it.
still Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Time = Speed the rate at which something flows the force of gravity may effect speed, but time still elapses the same IMO :shrug:
If you can handle drudging through a Philosopher's erudite babblespeak, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point by Huw Price is a great place to start.
Another question: Is it true that light follows lightlike curves (duh) in spacetime, and these are called null-related because the light 'vanishes'? Which means it doesn't leave any 'information' behind? This information corresponds to the coordinates of a 'particle' of light, which also vanish. Or in the Lorentz frame, we have that light from a timelike object 'projects' distance information onto local coordinate systems. ?
The terminology is a light-like vector of the Minkowskian Spacetime, and has the signature of \(\mu_{\nu \nu}=0\), and it describes the timelike cone of trajectory, which is null described. The timelike vector is obviously part of the four-vector written in Einstein summation \(v=v^{\mu}e_{\mu}\) which can be written in row vector form \((v^0,v^1,v^2,v^3)\). The light does not vanish - time vanishes for the light because the dilation has been stretched if you like, to infinity.
I think light vanishes if you're an electron. As mentioned, the observer is also removed from Einsteinian frames, along with special velocity--no coordinates are unique and only local time or "now" exists. But thanks for the update on Minkowski space.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So we have: a) Entropy increasing in the universe, as more or less a function of increasing space. However, in some regions space contains a maximum entropy (of information). b) The non-existence of observers, who "remember" past events. All these can do is "follow" the motion of a clock, which is a synchronisation and cannot be closer than a neighbourhood of the postulated 't-zero' coordinate. c) No proper time for particles of light, which are 'coordinated' to real distances when they intersect 't-zero' at the apex of nullcones (of timelike observers). d) Since observers have mass, they follow timelike curves and so do their nullcones. So the picture is a 'series' of cones aligned along a timelike curve, in Minkowski spacetime, all the cones are equivalent, and the timeline is R; you are "consciously" in a neighbourhood (or your electrons, etc, are) of 'realtime' which is arbitrarily close to the apex of your nullcone. Electrons etc, of course don't 'know' about neighbourhoods, but they are ontologically in a 'proper time' frame, the same as material particles.
a) Entropy increasing in the universe, as more or less a function of increasing space. However, in some regions space contains a maximum entropy (of information). In your case, what would be a maximal entropic stage? b) The non-existence of observers, who "remember" past events. All these can do is "follow" the motion of a clock, which is a synchronisation and cannot be closer than a neighbourhood of the postulated 't-zero' coordinate. This is vague, and unecessery. Why invoke observers, stating they do not exist, but equally state they do not remember the past? It's a paradox to refer to something that doesn't exist, and nor does it's application lay on anything relativity says on an experimental level, talking about atoms being ''observers'' making ''measurements'' is what's called a strong coupling on the system. The human which remembers a past is no more credible than a single atom collapsing the wave function. In other words, memory is negligable in physics when the collapse of the wave function is involved. c) No proper time for particles of light, which are 'coordinated' to real distances when they intersect 't-zero' at the apex of nullcones (of timelike observers). More or less, without the fancy babble. d) Since observers have mass, they follow timelike curves and so do their nullcones. You've completely lost me here. So, according to your analysis, observers which have mass, follow timelike curves? We are made of mass, but we don't experience any immediate timelike effects...
