An Error of Understanding: Time Does Not Equal Evolution

[Reiku]

Time is taking us Through Space?

It may not be so easy to state this question, because with the revelation of relativity, we no longer really state space and time as separate things, but rather the two ‘’notions’’ of space and time are single ‘’things’’ of, or sides of the same relativistic coin.

This is what we mean by taking the two as a single continuum, as spacetime alone.

So, taking the original question, ‘’Does time take us through space,’’ the questions seems to be flawed. If time and space are playing the same roles, then it’s not easy to work with time and say alone that it is responsible for our path through space. Not unless we state that time can only take us through a distance in space, if space is also taking us through a distance in time. This now resolves the paradox, where the space and time coordinates play exactly the same roles.

I argue, that the scientists that claim that time must give rise to evolution of anything, is an incorrect notion, in totality. You must define that space also gives an evolution of everything, so really, spacetime gives us the notion of how things evolve (1), not time. Time cannot in a relativistic framework, give rise alone to how things pass us by, or even how we correctly move through it.

(1) – It is here, some scientists of the quantum field would argue that we may even need to integrate the notion of a human observer, to know even these facts. This is where memory becomes important.

[CptBork]

You're wrong about this. Space and time have a special and deep connection, but they are not the same thing. Time as we know it is always moving forwards, never backwards, so it is to be distinguished from the other dimensions where one has arbitrary freedom of movement. The reason space and time are united in a single word, spacetime, is because of the nature of the mathematical quantities which are common to all observers. The distance between any two events varies between observers, as does the time between any two events, but the spacetime distance is a mathematical quantity which all observers agree upon.

So there's nothing wrong with the idea of equating the evolution of dynamical systems with the passage of time.

[BenTheMan]

Well said, Bork.

[Reiku]

You're wrong about this. Space and time have a special and deep connection, but they are not the same thing. Time as we know it is always moving forwards, never backwards, so it is to be distinguished from the other dimensions where one has arbitrary freedom of movement. The reason space and time are united in a single word, spacetime, is because of the nature of the mathematical quantities which are common to all observers. The distance between any two events varies between observers, as does the time between any two events, but the spacetime distance is a mathematical quantity which all observers agree upon.

So there's nothing wrong with the idea of equating the evolution of dynamical systems with the passage of time.

Let's see shall we. How do we understand time and space now?

Minkowski, Einsteins teacher, said in realization that space and time could no longer be considered as two seperate things:

''Gentlemen, the idea's of space and time which i wish to develop before you grew from the soil of experimental physics. Therein lies their strength. Their tendancy is radical...

...the provision of equations in which the special laws of relativity take on a new form in which the time coordinate plays [[And I Hence]]

''EXACTLY THE SAME ROLES''

''As the three spatial coordinates.''


Now work with that, and tell me relativity is wrong, or even my conclusions are.

[Reiku]

If we also cover what you say concerning their nature, then just remember the nature CPT is not reserved for time alone. Time alone, does not find itself moving without discourse. Space also finds itself switching their natures in special conditions in the universe, so that doesn't hold either, but actually strengthens what i said.

[Reiku]

''So there's nothing wrong with the idea of equating the evolution of dynamical systems with the passage of time.''

But there is. I have shown it empiracly to be incomplete.

[AlphaNumeric]

Minkowski, Einsteins teacher, said in realization that space and time could no longer be considered as two seperate things:

That doesn't mean he's correct or relevent now. 100 years has passed since SR was published and HUGE quantities of research have been done to understand the specifics and the concepts.

''EXACTLY THE SAME ROLES As the three spatial coordinates.''

Now work with that, and tell me relativity is wrong, or even my conclusions are.

They play the same kind of role in Lorentz transforms but that doesn't mean they are interchangable. The fact the symmetry of space-time is SO(1,3) and not SO(4) demonstrates you cannot swap time and space like you can swap two spacial directions. As Ben says, there's a property of time which space doesn't have, that you must travel in a particular direction.

Besides, I like how you word your last sentence. As if it'd be worse that you're wrong rather than relativity.

If we also cover what you say concerning their nature, then just remember the nature CPT is not reserved for time alone.

You mean just T then. CPT is a composition of the three discrete 'symmetries' of physical systems and is always conserved in a system obeying special relativity.

ut there is. I have shown it empiracly to be incomplete.

Where? You do not calculations, you derive no results from formula, you compute nothing. You arm wave about concepts completely over your head and think you prove something. Yes, that you're a compulsive liar.

[Reiku]

I'll say this for the sake of saying it, in case you missed me before Alphanumeric. I have no idea what you are saying, and i am almost sure your post was directed at me. See how pointless your posts are now to me?

[CptBork]

Let's see shall we. How do we understand time and space now?

Minkowski, Einsteins teacher, said in realization that space and time could no longer be considered as two seperate things:

''Gentlemen, the idea's of space and time which i wish to develop before you grew from the soil of experimental physics. Therein lies their strength. Their tendancy is radical...

...the provision of equations in which the special laws of relativity take on a new form in which the time coordinate plays [[And I Hence]]

''EXACTLY THE SAME ROLES''

''As the three spatial coordinates.''


Now work with that, and tell me relativity is wrong, or even my conclusions are.

I never said relativity is wrong, but your understanding of relativity clearly is. Minkowski showed how space and time are united in a single fabric, but the spatial components of this fabric play a different role than the time component. You've already seen the spacetime distance formula before (for flat space), in fact we've already had this discussion in a previous thread. That formula doesn't in any way show or suggest that time and space are the same thing. So your original point is still invalid- you're confusing physical metaphors with physical facts.

[Reiku]

I never said relativity is wrong, but your understanding of relativity clearly is. Minkowski showed how space and time are united in a single fabric, but the spatial components of this fabric play a different role than the time component. You've already seen the spacetime distance formula before (for flat space), in fact we've already had this discussion in a previous thread. That formula doesn't in any way show or suggest that time and space are the same thing. So your original point is still invalid- you're confusing physical metaphors with physical facts.

CPT

Wasn't your arguement that there are subtle differences between space and time, where one operated without discourse, and yet, sorry to sound harsh, but you ignored completely the arguement that they do in fact switch these roles under special conditions where the timelike turns spacelike, and vice versa?

Until we decide or show that space and time are in fact different, then we need to then ask how a movement in time does not effect a spatial movement... because it should, if both operate accordingly when taking actual physical roles in eithe plain.

I don't think i am confused. I see how people can conclude that they are somehow different, but as i have shown, this is not the general view.

Let me tackle this another way, and should hit this on the nail.

If physicists say time=evolution, then they ignore totally that there needed to be a corresponding space interval at the very beginning. Now how can you argue that would be nonesense? Easy. Because when time began, so did space, as one would say when space began, so did time. You should know this without question.

[AlphaNumeric]

I'll say this for the sake of saying it, in case you missed me before Alphanumeric. I have no idea what you are saying, and i am almost sure your post was directed at me. See how pointless your posts are now to me?

It's funny, he thinks I'm unable to say anything which isn't directed at him.

IIn case anyone is wondering, the reason I seem to reply to cranks so much is because I don't want them to sucker the casual reader. For instance, it might be very easy for someone who doesn't know any QM or SR to think Reiku is onto something. After all, 'What the Bleep' fooled a lot of people. So I reply pointing out mistakes even when the crank is beyond help.

Reiku is such a crank. A crank who thinks he can do quantum mechanics when he doesn't even know how to multiply out (a+b)(c+d)

that they do in fact switch these roles under special conditions where the timelike turns spacelike, and vice versa?

But this is not the same as them being equivalent. As I said before, the space-time symmetry is SO(1,3), not SO(4). If they were exactly the same then space-time would transform under SO(4).

Until we decide or show that space and time are in fact different, then we need to then ask how a movement in time does not effect a spatial movement

It doesn't. It's possible to sit still in space but not in time. A movement through space alters your movement in time but not vice versa.

You should know this without question.

Your logic is flawed. Space and time starting at the same point doesn't make them equivalent.

[Reiku]

I reported to Dr Wolf about my conclusions, by sending him a copy of the OP, and god bless him, he replied, (and i say this, because he is really buisy)... but... i find it amazing what he said... it blew my mind apart:

I asked, after the posting of the OP

''Would you agree?''

Fred Alan Wolf: I wouldn't say "Time is taking us Through Space" or "time
must give rise to evolution" as that give time the guise of the responsible
agent for the activity. I would say that spacetime is the arena upon within
whatever is the active principle can act. Attempts to include the observer
in this are only partially successful in that we need to recognize that the
action of the observer appears to be one of squaring the quantum wave
functions to arrive at the probabilities we do discover in life. I discuss
this in my book The Yoga of Time Travel (I assume you have this?) Evolution
appears to invlove creating negative entropy or bringing order about where
before there was none. I gert into trouble here because it seems to
reuncounter to the main stream of thought which says the universe is
becoming more and more disordered. I see it the oter way round--the
universe seems to be gettting more ordered at the cost of energy.

[Diode-Man]

Evolution = Time (not the other way around)

If a life form isn't aware enough to know it is a live, then it isn't going to be able to even acknowledge time, I would argue that from an amoeba's perspective, time doesn't exist at all, since the amoeba probably doesn't even know that it is living in the first place. More like a "condition of matter" than an actual life-form, amoeba's of course, don't have souls.

[Reiku]

I agree. (But i won't divulge why...) If i said what i thought, Ben will bannish this thread.

[AlphaNumeric]

I discuss this in my book The Yoga of Time Travel (I assume you have this?)

Sounds like he wants a bit more royalties to me...

Evolution
appears to invlove creating negative entropy or bringing order about where
before there was none. I gert into trouble here because it seems to
reuncounter to the main stream of thought which says the universe is
becoming more and more disordered.

And Dr Wolf shows he's bordering on the crank mind set of creationists. They too come out with "But evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics!". Err.... no it doesn't. See that giant ball of light in the sky, providing all the plants around us with energy? We call it 'The Sun' and it pumps huge quantities of low entropy energy into the Earth. The Earth then radiates high entropy thermal radiation. The difference is partly used by life to organise high entropy carbon dioxide and water into low entropy sugars and other chemicals. There's no overall decrease in entropy, what life decreases the Sun increases a million fold.

Dr Wolf doesn't seem to get this and worse, he's actually published this crap in a book suckers pay money for!

Before I thought Wolf was just a bit of a hair brained physicist working on the more remote 'out there' areas of physics. Now I just think he's a nut.

[Reiku]

No need. It was an Award Winning Book. Jealous much?

[QuarkHead]

I reported to Dr Wolf about my conclusions, by sending him a copy of the OP, and god bless him, he replied,

Fred Alan Wolf: {blah, blah}

Just out of mild interest, Reiku, do you have F. A. Wolf's express permission to quote him verbatim from what seems to be a private message to you?

If not, this might be interpreted as a gross violation of the usual rules of internet etiquette.

[Reiku]

Well, i hold rights as well... I am afterall, a counterpart to the discussions, so i wouldn't believe so.


Why? Would you like me to settle the deck, and ask him now?

[KALSTER]

IMHO, if you consider that time is not a physical property per se, but merely an aspect/measurement of movement, I don't see the ambiguity. Space-time is the recognition that a change of space cannot exist without the passage of time. If the distance relationship between two particles changes within the same inertial frame, time happens. If the perspective of the observer changes, time happens. While a particle vibrates due to internal kinetic energy, time happens. Time always happens, since relative movement always exists. Am I wrong in detecting a twinge of postmodernist confusion here?

[Reiku]

From my perspective, or from someone else?