In the frame where the motion is occurring, the moving object has kinetic energy, an observable, and the object at rest does not.
What is "time"
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
No you are not doing what you state in text I have made red. The past does not exist. Only the present does. You are NOW seeing Alpha Cetauri as it was 4.3 million years ago. Exactly the same as if you were watching a video record on your monitor of your first steps as a child - neither that child nor the Alpha Cetauri you are watching exist now in that earlier form. Books also record things that happened a few thousand years ago but you can not "look into the past" and see Kepler working on his three laws.
Landau Roof
Registered Senior Member
You can be fair and patient if you like , Matt; these are admirable qualities. I see you are waking up to the fact that no one ever changes their minds on Sciforums, especially the usual suspects with thousands of posts. They fancy that 'dey da man!', and can never be wrong, or even slightly mistaken about anything. You and I realize that your idea - that time does not exist may be mistaken, but they with their fixed idea that time definitely exists are immovable. It's correct because THEY have always thought so. Yes, it is unscientific, yet that's how they are.They prefer to insult those who disagree with them than actually ever admit that they are wrong. Admitting they are wrong or even shifting their original opinion a bit is anathema to them.Your facts are 'opinion' in their view. Do not, sir, come to Scoforums looking for objectivity and open mindedness, i.e., the scientific view of the world. If you'll excuse me, I feel I must write LOL! now and put a guffawing emoticon.
Kudos to you Matt for keeping your cool, but see what good that did you.
Kudos to you Matt for keeping your cool, but see what good that did you.
I of course agree.
True that once we consider quantum mechanic equations it is more complex / difficult to eliminate time as multi-values of observables with different probabilities will result; however, QM only is concerned with observable, not time.
In the original matrix formulism of QM, time is already absent! - no need for me to remove it. Time only appears as apartial derivative in the wave equation form - a procedure, not any thing real. (As a parameter, t, can appear in either form but not as an observable with an Eigen value. In this QM is no different from classical mechanics. For example, the Hamiltionian is the total energy of the system and part that is potential which often has the t parameter describing it. The pendulum has PE varying as sin(wt). etc.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics said:
The non-zero uncertainty in the location and momentum product is real; as is the uncertainty in the when x energy product.
People's "conformation bias" makes this second usually stated as the "time x energy product" but that is an error (or at best, just non-sense).
Let me explain what is the true meaning of this 2nd uncertainty product with a photon made WHEN a bound electron makes a transition to lower energy level:
Some excited upper states are more stable than others. This is expressed in their "transition probabilities" many of which are known. If the upper state is quite unstable, the transition probability is high and WHEN the transition occurs is well defined but the energy is not as well defined. I. e. if you measure the length of those photons it will be relative short - only a few hundred thousand cycles.
The longest known photons come from a transition that is to first order forbidden - extremely low transition probably. For example the Oxygen green line that is prominent in the northern lights is several meters long - a huge number of cycle (and as Fourier analysis of a large number of cycles shows) so has extraordinarily well defined energy, but WHEN it was emitted is very poorly defined. - That is the pair (when&energy) of observables that "don't commute" I.e. QM's uncertainty principle applies to. QM is ONLY concerned with OBSERVABLES and time is not one!
If you want to understand how one measures the length of a photon, go here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...rent-in-different-medium.142855/#post-3242608
That post tells how I measured some that were about 30 cm long.
Last edited by a moderator:
MattMars
Registered Member
HI Tashja,
Re : What are your thoughts regarding nonlocality?
Can nonlocality be used as an argument or proof that time does not exist, or should we sacrifice space for the sake of time?
That’s a very good question because it kind of brings two concepts together... if time does exist, what is instantaneous messaging, and if time does not exist, what is instantaneous messaging...
If I can restate my position, I researched my book effectively trying to find a reason not to write it (I'm pretty lazy : ) That is looking to see who else had my approach, ie if I thought I had a truly unique insight, but in fact it was old hat.
( Sadly I couldn’t find anything else with the same approach, so no excuse, and I had to go to all the effort or actually writing it to get it out of my system)
So let me explain the approach. As I say, I'm suggesting that perhaps the universe is just filled with matter/energy/space, everywhere, and all this stuff is just moving changing and interacting.
Where I suggest that to people, oddly they don’t seem to actually think about it, but just rush on to keep asking me about a thing called “time”, and a “past” or a “future”, and whether it exists, or is linked with space, (or how it works with non-locality) etc.
But consider... “what I'm suggesting is that perhaps the universe is just filled with matter/energy/space, everywhere, and all this stuff is just moving changing and interacting”.
And that’s it. Period
I'm not saying I know how the universe could be that way, or how it might come into existence that way, or why it may be that way etc ( but then neither does the theory of time explain these things).
What I am asking is..
“what IF things may just exist, move and interact. Not heading into a future, or leaving a past behind, etc”?
“would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming a thing called time exists?”
“would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming a thing called time exists?”
And I'm trying to show people how those questions might be used as a scientific tool, or key.
e.g. in any situation like nonlocality, you can look at an experiment demonstrating nonlocality with all the various theories of time, (ie that pov or assumption) and see what sense you can make, but you can also look at it with my questions, or pov, and see how it looks from there.
I'm not really familiar with nonlocality, (I assume you mean quantum entanglement), i.e. I know that I don’t know about it, I don’t understand the experiment, or how the conclusion makes sense, so I have to leave that undecided ( in a good way) in my mind ( i.e. I think it is silly to jump to a conclusion and think just defending it is the same as it being right).
But in an attempt to answer
“Can nonlocality be used as an argument or proof that time does not exist?”
I think perhaps neither yes or no. Because, the problem with “time” is it relies (imo) on our acceptance of unobservables, questionable associations, and seemingly circular logic without an observable foundation.
e.g. “of course the past exists, because time exists and passes”... “of course time exists because things move”, and “things move in time”, and “time exists because the past does”
so imo, nonlocality , may neither prove or disprove time, ( though I haven’t thought this through deeply at this point).
My position is that perhaps things just exist and move and interact spatially... so for me, without a deeper understanding, nonlocality would require a message to be sent not through time in any way ( surely the whole concept requires only the present, so eliminates time) – but at infinite speed. An Idea I really don’t like at all.
should we sacrifice space for the sake of time?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, (i'm suggesting things may just move in 3d space ( with SR/GR dilation in rates of change but not over "time") - so definitely no sacrifice of space, im just questioning if extra to motion, "time" should be in the mix at all - ie im trying to tell everyone to take a step back - i know it looks like time exists , if you assume time exists... we all know that, but lets recheck that assumption)
but perhaps you can clarify to yourself what you mean by "should we sacrifice space for the sake of time?"if you can consider it against my key questions again,
“what IF things may just exist, move and interact. Not heading into a future, or leaving a past behind, etc”?
“would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming a thing called time exists?”
“would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming a thing called time exists?”
You may see that what I'm trying to do is SLOW everyone down, and get them to really check wheter this time thing needs to be in any conversation, as opposed to RUSHING head long in to integrating it fully in complex conversations, and then trying to work out whats going on.
To summarise,
I don’t understand the nonlocality experiments at all ( I don’t understand how they confirm spin up here, make spin down there instantly, or even precisely what a waveform collapse is), so I cant give a firm answer.
But, the reason I think what I'm suggesting may have value, is because it it questions and reinterprets the heart of Special Relativity, and so much of the noise, and quote chucking on this and other forums rests on understand SR correctly. And I assume much of QM has Gr in corporate, and that rests on minkowskis interpretation of SR –
Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. – Hermann Minkowski,
Which I think has a very significant error in it, that permeates all sensible converastios about “time”.
(ive suggested Paddoboy checks section 1, kinematics, of “The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies “, we shall see)
https://sites.google.com/site/abrie...ivity/on-the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies
sorry if that’s not concise, but do you get the idea that whatever your personal knowledge or area etc, you may be able to use these questions...
1- “what IF things may just exist, move and interact. Not heading into a future, or leaving a past behind, etc”?
2 - “would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming a thing called time exists?”
To reach your own conclusions, or at least see new povs ?
(and if you can make an observation that 1, and or 2, then you may have seriously questioned my position ( so let me know : ) )
Matthew marsden
Ps pls can you apply those questions to what you are thinking about re nonlocality, and let me know how it goes?
You could address my previous response:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-7#post-3243916
It is really not the "big deal" most assume. It is simply true (in conflict with your eperineces) that one thing can be spread out - in two or more widely separated places. The link I give in post 148* tells how I knew ONE photon was at least 4 feet from its self during its trip to the screen.
In some sense it is no more surprising than when you flip a coin and look at it seeing "heads" you know the other side will be "tails" - these are two parts of the same system, just as spin up and spin down totally zero are ONE system (spread out more than the coin) An entangled system is ONE thing. (like the coin is)
To spread out the coin, imagine it is 0.00001 light year thick and flipped by a giant who is 0.001 light year tall. Should he be surprised that the side not seen is Tails when he sees Heads only?
* this link: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...rent-in-different-medium.142855/#post-3242608
Last edited by a moderator:
How does one observe kinetic energy?
I don't have my copy handy, but try the General Scholium and the descriptive matter following the laws of motion.
You can't if your only observation of an object with KE is at one "now" but we don't live in one now. We experience a continuous sequence of "nows." The motion or KE is deduced from this sequence. These "nows" are arranged (by nature) in a series of before and afters. The brick a cm from you nose in a "before now" may be with out any KE - still be there in an after now; but if your nose is bleeding in that after now, and the brick is closer to the floor, then you can safely conclude it had KE and motion is in the "before now."
Almost every thing changes. Candles burn away, etc. but time is not causing that change in the candle's atoms -a chemical reaction with O2 is. At the atomic level, often you can not tell which is the before and which is the now or after. I.e. "time's arrow" is a large scale statical thing. On that QM level, nature does not arrange things in a series of "nows." - That should cause the "time is real" believers to think a little as it "flows both ways.".
Last edited by a moderator:
Take your time - I'll wait for the location. Quite honestly, it has been years since I read him., but as I recall, Newton never actually collects his many results into the "laws of motion" as Kepler did.
I went there, but found no question in the entire post, which did seem reasonable to me. What is it you want "addressed."?
So, your argument against the existence of time is that, in order to do science, we have to do a number of observations at different times.
Thanks for looking. The post was in the context of several posts prior by MattMars and myself, and my position is that a functioning individual uses the concept of time to maintain some orderliness in the memories captured. It seems self-evident though, but justifies our preocupation with measuring time using a concept of a continuum of "nows".
MattMars
Registered Member
But I don't think you are approaching the subject with adequate appreciation for what a human individual is in terms of functionality. My point is that although the now is the only moment we are ever in, and so one can claim that time does not pass in the now, we humans have internal equipment to remember past "now’s", and can therefore establish our own means of orderliness in how we associate the memories of past now’s. That orderliness for me is best accomplished by considering the "now’s" that I remember has having a timeline that is often referred to as a continuum of now’s. With that timeline of past now’s, I, as an individual, can manage and use my memories of the past to benefit me in the current now.
Hi Quantum,
I thought I’d addressed some of this in my other reply, (but this forum is moving at quite a pace : ), but here's some detail.
remember, my approach is to consider the following question/ possibility...
I'd apply this to your points as follows...
I’m suggesting a human is a collection of matter, that is interacting with its environment, such that specific areas of our brains can be rearranged to form mental impressions.
how we interpret these internal, physical mental impressions is important. We tend to automatically 'call' them "memories" of ( a thing or place called) "the" " past".
but from that we should really check whether just the internal mental impression exist - or whether a thing or place called the past really, also , exists.
in my opinion, many people don’t seem to see, let alone consider , this distinction, and it is unscientific just to have a hunch, give it a name and then use the term "the past" as if it is legitimate and can be used in other proofs etc.
1∆ The Past.
re human functionality consider...
the problem here imo, is we start from the assumption "there is time", and "there are moments" and "a thing called time passes" - And all of this leads to circular logic.
the way out would be for you to cite an experiment that gives scientific evidence that
-there are moments (now’s), and
- a thing called time indeed exists and passes
- very specifically any such experiment should not be explainable by the simpler assumption "things just exist move and interact"
(just as one can't call a moving curtain "evidence of ghosts", because while this is not disprovable, it is explainable by the simpler, testable, assumption "wind moves curtains")
i.e. - I don’t actually seem to see "moments" pass, is things existing and moving, but nothing coming out of a "future" or going into a past"
this implies there is a thing called time, and "now's"... but consider also -
what if there is no such thing as time, no passing of it, and only one "now" so to speak ( the term kind of pollutes things)
I suggest, wherever we say we are remembering "past now’s", we are testably in fact only looking at stuff in our heads, and that itself only needs matter to exist and interact to be reorganised, and is only evidence that matter exists and interacts.
yes, but in fact you may just have a linked arrangement of mental impressions, I fully understand the conclusion, and its usefulness that these are a "timeline", but like the pages in a book. no matter how you scan them, they all just exist.
this leads me to another key question which is...
if there is, then there is, but if there is not actually a past, ( no matter how many people like, and use the expression - science is not a popularity vote), then there is not actually a past, and there is not actually a "temporal order" - just the very useful idea of one.
I suggest, with the growing, accumulation of knowledge about how the world is operating in your mind, you have more ways of interpreting what happens around you.
(this accumulation requires only that you and the world (light, sound etc) are existing, moving and interacting, in all directions)
it's important to realise, I won’t be able to disprove anything that you (or anyone) suggests if it is based on unobservables that "are true" if they "are true". And I fully agree that we describe the world in these terms then that is how we will see it.
that’s why I call for clear experimental proof.
e.g. if I suggest I strongly feel, and fully believe, there are invisible ghosts walking among us, then you cannot disprove this. but that's not science, I need to provide an experiment to show reliable evidence of my claim - and my experiments cant involve just calling one observation by another name ( e.g. a billowing curtain - ghost interaction).
Mm
Ps: I may be right or wrong in what I am suggesting, but my experience shows me people think I am wrong, if, I cannot convince them otherwise.
But this is not quite the case, we can’t convince anyone of anything, we can only suggest people try out different ways of looking at the world for themselves, and see which pov makes the best ( scientific) sense.
The best I can do is suggest you actually look at the world in two different ways and compare them.
e.g. literally sit in a park, and make observations, and consider how the world would look,
You should find that view A (time exists) concurs completely with what you see...
And that, imo, is where most people fail... because they think there is thus no reason to consider possibility B ( just movement).
If you adhere to A, then all you need to is provide experimental evidence that “the past” and “the future” really exist.
also did you check out the 2,4,8 16 video ? i can type a lot, but this may be a more effective inroad
Last edited:
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Without time, you literally cannot do Newtonian physics at all. It's part of the dimensional analysis of basically everything of interest.
You can do relativity, but even GR uses Newton's free parameter G, which is obtained by the study of something (the Cavendish experiment) that very strongly resembles, once again, a clock. Clocks, thus far, are instruments used to compare relative motion.
You can make a clock out of photons, and the ticks and tocks are a measure of how long it takes for a change of state to peak. But this is all subject to Doppler shifts, so that time intervals are 'stretchy', the same way that lengths are.
I have suggested that the "proper time" for a pair photon creation event is unique, even though at some time interval after it has occurred, it has no real meaning in other inertial frames, other than to point in the direction you would need to speed up in order to catch the first wavefront of that event.
On a deeper level, the reason that relativity ALWAYS requires two observers in order to express a relationship is the same reason that a photon, once created, possesses only one 'proper time' FoR, but one must always compare that one to the FoR one is currently in. This is the reason that instruments like clocks, just like meter sticks, are only useful to the extent that they are used to compare 'relate' one time or length to another.
"What is time?" is therefore exactly the same question as "what is a length?". And this occurs because of the constant, invariant nature of the speed of light in a vacuum and for no other reason.
No surprise, c is related to the properties of a field that operates in the vacuum. There is no topology or inertia in the vacuum, so we really can't do a lot of geometry or physics related math with that idea. Yet inertia apparently derives from there, so perhaps inertia also derives of whatever limits the speed of light? It would follow that space and time do also. Emergent things behave this way, even if it is not possible to describe motion without at least two dimensions.
You can do relativity, but even GR uses Newton's free parameter G, which is obtained by the study of something (the Cavendish experiment) that very strongly resembles, once again, a clock. Clocks, thus far, are instruments used to compare relative motion.
You can make a clock out of photons, and the ticks and tocks are a measure of how long it takes for a change of state to peak. But this is all subject to Doppler shifts, so that time intervals are 'stretchy', the same way that lengths are.
I have suggested that the "proper time" for a pair photon creation event is unique, even though at some time interval after it has occurred, it has no real meaning in other inertial frames, other than to point in the direction you would need to speed up in order to catch the first wavefront of that event.
On a deeper level, the reason that relativity ALWAYS requires two observers in order to express a relationship is the same reason that a photon, once created, possesses only one 'proper time' FoR, but one must always compare that one to the FoR one is currently in. This is the reason that instruments like clocks, just like meter sticks, are only useful to the extent that they are used to compare 'relate' one time or length to another.
"What is time?" is therefore exactly the same question as "what is a length?". And this occurs because of the constant, invariant nature of the speed of light in a vacuum and for no other reason.
No surprise, c is related to the properties of a field that operates in the vacuum. There is no topology or inertia in the vacuum, so we really can't do a lot of geometry or physics related math with that idea. Yet inertia apparently derives from there, so perhaps inertia also derives of whatever limits the speed of light? It would follow that space and time do also. Emergent things behave this way, even if it is not possible to describe motion without at least two dimensions.
All points noted Billy.I of course agree.
Tashja: for what it's worth, I broadly share Matt's view about time, and I don't believe that quantum entanglement offers any kind of instant messaging.
Matt: your post about sincere comments rather than personal animosity noted.
Yes need more than a picture of one "now" to "do science" but NO that is not my PROOF of post 28 where I show no reference to time is needed to COMPLETELY describe the entire observable universe.
My second argument, not proof, is that all observable do have at least one detectable characteristic and time has none. Not even a shadow or smell.
No, you showed a proof that, in classical mechanics, we don't need to include time to describe a certain finite set of properties relative to one another. That's far, far from a complete description and it is far from the best approximate description.
Sure. And if you want to do science with only observables, go to it. You're not going to get very far.
when is any object at rest ?