What bugs me is, if we are in a 4-dimensional universe, what makes one of the dimensions look so unlike the other three (or what makes three dimensions look the same)? Relativity says different observers won't agree on which of the four dimensions they have defined locally as being "different" from three others. Or have I got that wrong? And it does seem to me that time is defined in different ways, depending on . . . the context. I've read several times that Einstein "redefined" what time is, starting with a simple way of measuring it by reflection of light from a mirror. It does seem that time is inextricably tied to measurement (however we choose to define that).
No matter if you will not accept it, this was still his crux of the argument. Ironically, Dirac proposed the same solution. He said that time was probably not a fundamental parameter of space. Keep in mind... time is nothing but a mathematical parameter of change.
Yes it is, this is why only matter fields can define time. Though nothing special about ''measurement'' is implied here to the human observer.
Nightshift, did you read post 327? Escpecially about the debatable part. It seems the only ones that refuse to accept that are the hardliners. arfbrane can see that, why can't you?
General relativity and quantum mechanics are theories, and both use time variables. So both practical and theoretical science depend on time, to arrive at conclusions. Time is defined by many people, including myself. From the thread as it has progressed and historical reference, we (as in people) often disagree exactly what the definition should be.
Did you not notice the QUESTION MARKS at the ends of those QUESTIONS, paddoboy? Are you completely ignorant to the FACT that CONCEPTS and REALITY are NOT THE SAME???!!! ROTFLMAO at your puerile "game", paddoboy! It was you that Posted, in your Post #316 (Bold/size by dmoe!) : paddoboy, evidently you fail to understand that Physical Reality exists regardless of any concepts!!! Or, : you are just a TROLL!! Either way - your statements that follow - seem to be a very accurate assessment of yourself!
Ignoring the obvious maddening infestation, that is what I alluded to the other day...Yet the only ones that apparently cannot accept that [other then arfabrane] are our naysayers. Still from where I sit/stand, time in its most basic concept is as real as space....we can escape neither, we wouldn't be here if we did not have both.
Another great link which concludes thus...... """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://www.ram.org/ramblings/science/time_is_relative.html "Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time---and in turn the curvature of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. Space and time not only affect, but are also affected by everything that that happens in the universe." Hofstadter would call this a Strange Loop. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
What is that "basic concept" though? It seems that everyone understands what time is, but can't explain what it is (all that well). As mentioned, in Einstein's theories spacetime is four dimensional and one observer's time dimension can be another observer's space dimension; this does not explain why an observer locally "assigns" time to one of the four. It seems that something makes this choice for us.
paddoboy,your Post #316 (Bold/size by dmoe!) : paddoboy, do you know what an antonym is? It is a word that has an opposite meaning! One of the antonyms for the word concept is : reality! Yet for some reason, you see concept as the same as reality !?!?!? -the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept Now, paddoboy, go ahead and ignore this fact - as you ignore all others facts that in any way cause you to actually have to think for yourself. Goodbye, paddoboy!
Because time is entrenched , for many , many years as being something that matters beyond a mathematical measurement of movement Its hard for people to understand that the Nature of time or the essence of time is not really hard to understand really Which is what I've been trying to point out Hence the atomic clock example Time is used to understand the dynamics of things and the interactions With things , only Hence my thinking and I have dwelled upon this for many years To understand time is to understand what it really is , times essence , essence being , what is fundamental to time its self , beyond opinion , philosophy , mathematics and perspective , what is the ultimate reality of time Movement , which is more fundamental than change , because movement is fundamental to change What then is fundamental to movement is the next question , logically What is fundamental to movement , is to explore objects in the macro and the micro , the QUALITIES of both types of objects and why the qualities are important to the understanding of time or duration Qualities being , magnetic fields , vibration , rotation or spin , energies etc. If I still an atom from a three dimensional movement , north , south , east and west , in space the atom still moves because within this atom , any atom , it still has the qualities of my last statement above , therefore has movement Therefore no matter how you think of time , from the ordering of time zones to quantum , all are based on the movement of things and therefore time is a mathematical construct , naturally because we want to understand this movement and its intricacies There will be an understanding in the future , of how things work by themselves and interactions , that the measure of this movement , using time comparisons , of these things will no longer be necessary river
"time is a mathematical construct" Yes, and a mathematical construct is a measurement, or at least the building blocks of measurement.
"What then is fundamental to movement is the next question , logically" Movement is a consequence of change of relative position of two connected bits of energy (or mass). They must be connected. If they aren't connected they aren't moving relative to each other because there is no transfer of energy (data) to measure.
There are many things to consider and it isn't easy. You need explain, for instance, non-locality in which particles are seemingly connected through presumably unlimited distances.
It appears to me that once two particles have been connected (energy/information exchange going on), they remain connected forever. Are you talking about quantum entanglement? I have some mad, mad theories (probably wrong but hey-ho), but in essence these particles/photons MUST be connected. My guess is that once energy has propagated and made a connection, the connection is maintained by a standing carrier wave which transmits data/information capable of executing instantaneous change. Farfetched? Maybe, maybe not. Don't forget the observer is connected to BOTH particles and can receive and transmit data to/from both particles. My betting is that if you don't look at both particles, the weird entanglement phenomenon ceases. Is that right?
Entanglement is indeed about connections between particles, and these connections exist because pairs of particles interact. So when particles first appeared, they must have all been interacting, therefore every particle in the universe is entangled with every other particle. Measuring entanglement is quite a different story, and it depends on what is known about say, a pair of particles or an ensemble of them. If instead we randomly select a pair of particles, their entanglement "history" has likely been affected by many other interactions. Measurement involves "resetting" the histories, so we can view the preparation of particles (by letting them interact in a "controlled" way), as writing information on some abstract surface. This information persists as long as the particles don't interact further with each other or with any other particles in the environment. There is no "instantaneous" communication, instead all you can do is "read back" what was written; the "reading process" doesn't depend on where the particles are, but the "writing process" does.
