Disagree - energy is measurable as to how much work can be performed
Agree - time has no properties hence does not exist
Theory of Everything.
- Thread starter Orion68
- Start date
Agree - time has no properties hence does not exist
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well time can be measured by "duration" of something that requires time
MO, it exist as a property of physical change.Agree - time has no properties hence does not exist.........
But pure energy cannot be measured. Defined energy can be measured. You have to specify what type of energy you are measuring.
Just the same as saying we measure work-place time as a duration from "nine to five" .
You cannot measure time itself. On that we totally agree. And so it is with energy.
https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/energy/joule.html?u=joule&v=1
IMO, there is no measurable free (pure) energy, it is always a property of a defined system, just like time.
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/different-energy-sources.php
Last edited:
"duration" AGE which is merely a arbitrary measurement between points on a arbitrary scale
Don't think so so agree to disagree
Sounds like a circular argument
Well I would say pure energy is a no-no.
But using a defined unit of energy can be compared between the different types of energy
Not sure if can claim any same same of types of time ? ? ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
As I said a specific energetic phenomenon associated with various types of energy generating actions.
Well I gave you a list.
Then also; office hours from 9 to five, a minute as 1/60 of an hour, an hour as an arbitrary standard of time, a week, month, year, century.
All measurements of arbitrary but specific time blocks (measurements) associated with duration of a specific change.
So where are "Natural units
In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement based only on universal physical constants" for TIME so I can convert "9 to five" to "Natural units "
Hume submits that we get the idea of time by perceiving change
https://aeon.co/essays/what-albert-einstein-owes-to-david-humes-notion-of-time
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If you can tell me the shortest period of change, we can identify the associated time constant.In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement based only on universal physical constants" for TIME so I can convert "9 to five" to "Natural units "
Perhaps quantum change is the shortest possible period of change. But that is still only by observation. And do we have a fundamental "time unit"? What is a fundamental time unit? It does not exist.
Yes, exactly as I visualized it. Time emerges as a by-product of change.Hume submits that we get the idea of time by perceiving change
https://aeon.co/essays/what-albert-einstein-owes-to-david-humes-notion-of-time .....
Time emerges from observing specific change and has been given "arbitrary" values associated with the type of change.
What is a fundamental "natural unit of energy" based on the universal constant property of energy"? Seems to me that the "natural unit of energy" has been given a range of arbitrary mathematical (symbolic) values. Energy emerges from observing specific change and has been given "arbitrary values" associated with the type of energetic change.
A purely natural system of units has all of its units defined in this way, and usually such that the numerical values of the selected physical constants in terms of these units are exactly 1.[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
I never thought I'd be on the opposite side of the human arbitrary symbolic mathematical value vs universal values and functions based on universal physical constants as is often argued against the notion that mathematical values and functions are a properties of the Universe.
But I believe that I am consistent in my view that while the unverse functions in a mathematical fashion, human mathematics are purely symbolic and the values are arbitrarily chosen for human convenience.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree. You may want to read my post a little closer.
I make a distinction between universal mathematics which consist of "unnamed" relative physical values and functions.
Human mathematics are the symbolic translation and representation of these universal values and functions.
But I agree, without universal mathematics there would be no human mathematics.
p.s. I lean toward Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe".
What post in particular ? To your first statement .
Tegmark , interesting .
What is his theory ?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Here:
Yes indeed.
In short, he believes that all of reality consist of mathematical patterns formed by relative physical values (wave-lengths) of strings and that only density of the pattern determines its properties as light, sound, gas, fluid, or solid, in reality.
I can identify with the concept that when you get small enough (i.e.Planck scale) objects are no longer physical except as energetic quanta with relative mathematical values, which form mathematical patterns (elements) and these patterns interact to form ever more complex and denser patterns, eventually becoming expressed as physical stuff.
Isn't this an exquisite pattern which self-assembles into these incredible graphene sheets?
(now being considered for use in computers) for its transmission speed and stability.
Last edited:
Why " relative physical values " ? What does this mean ?
No hurry , I'll be signing off now , I've been here for hours .
I'll be back in a three or four days .
river
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Compare it to the difference between (universal) algebraic and (human) numerical mathematics.
First, I see a "universal value" as the sum potential contained in the object. This gives the object a value relative to the values of other objects with different inherent potentials.
The greater the mass of a star the greater it's relative "value" (description of the value) of gravitational impact on the spacetime fabric.
And it is well established that matter behaves in accordance to relative environmental influences and in relation to each other. It is the common denominator found in GR.
The universe does not "know" mathematics. It functions by responding to natural causalities of all sorts, each with their own value relative to values of all other things and their mathematical interactions. These relative values are derived by the constituent physical values of the parts of the object.
IMO, in all human descriptions of universal values and functions, "relativity" is a fundamental part of all equations.
OTOH, QM does not bother with relativity because it is a discreet quantum function, which yields a result.
I believe this difference in QM and GR is still an unresolved problem in the current science.
But it is undeniable that the universe has mathematically measurable physical qualities (values), which are observable as constants and common denominators of the way the universe works.
Humans recognized these constant natural functions and gave them names and symbolic representations and "human maths" is indeed a correct symbolic representation of what the universe does naturally without knowledge of human given "names" and arbitrary "numerics" as a result of specific causalities and effects.
(interestingly, many universal physical functional constants were first identified as gods, i.e. Thor, etc.)
Our symbolic mathematics allow us to predict future events. The production of a Higgs boson is proof of the accuracy of human mathematics describing the mathematical aspects of universal actions and change.
IMO, the concept of a mathematical universe is simply elegant and I suspect that such a perspective would solve many outstanding scientific questions to which the answers are not immediately physically observable.
Hope I have permission from the mods. I have posted this several more times before, but I believe that for the layman this is an informative, entertaining video, which really makes you think and gain new respect for the elegant beauty of universal mathematical physical patterns.
Last edited:
All mathematics is based, fundamentally , on the physical material objects . Higgs Boson included .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Eschew making declarations about things you know nothing about.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Mandelbrot Set.
Imaginary numbers.
n-dimensional theory.
Calabi-Yau manifold.
How long a list would you like?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This sentence no verb.
So semantics becomes the basis of the discussion , rather than the discussion of physical material things themselves ?