How to explain motion if time does not exist

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Secret, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

    Can you name any form of measurement that doesn't include a transfer of energy? Or if that's too hard, can you show how the transfer of energy from one system to another, aka measurement, isn't a "phenomenon, body, or substance"? Note that "transfer" is the same as "motion" of energy.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I've already given you plenty of reference to study for yourself. If those don't help, there's nothing more I can do for you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    You haven't done anything "for" me. You've trotted out a bunch of pretty meaningless arguments.

    What does "a measurement isn't the same as the act of measurement" mean? Measurement is an act, so your argument looks contradictory.

    I've already studied plenty of reference material, which is what you need to do to get a degree. I'm reasonably confident that I understand what "time is not an operator in quantum mechanics" actually means. Since time isn't material, it can't operate on anything. Therefore it can't be an intrinsic property of anything material, but rather is derived by a process of measurement which is a transfer of energy.

    I understand that energy is the only really material thing in the universe, it has different "forms" in our observational paradigm, but energy is always energy independently of any abstraction, and time is not a form of energy.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You didn't understand the point about measurement, so it will probably do no good to repeat it.

    Apparently you need to study more, as "time is not an operator in quantum mechanics" has nothing to do with whether or not time is "material".

    "The problem is that the time at which the particle has a given state is not an operator belonging to the particle, it is a parameter describing the evolution of the system." -wiki"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29
     
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    That's a shame, and you tried so hard, too.
    But time isn't material. Time can't act on anything, and as the wiki quote says, it's a parameter.

    What do you think "defined by measurement" means? A definition doesn't have to describe something material, does it?
     
  9. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You're on your own.
     
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
  11. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Poor baby:spank:
     
  12. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    While we may not attribute measurements to a physical time (spacetime) we can still attribute measureableness to it.

    BTW clocks ticking and even measuring oscillation of cesium-133 atom are representations of our perception of time.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2012
  13. Secret Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    299

Share This Page