Yes, but you are forgetting everything in the Universe is changing position (is in motion), and that your experience of duration is directly attributable to motions of at least your bodily functions including brain waves. Even if we alter your scenario and say the Universe and everything in it including photons stopped moving, you as the observer experiencing/counting time, is where the time reference is attributed and that is due to motion you experience. If we examine a Universe void of any motion (macro and micro) then it is stopped in time too. How would anyone or anything completely void of motion account for any time or change (motion) when there was none (note we wouldn't even be able to observe such a Universe because photons would stop moving in that imagined example)?
Time is NOT the 4th dimension...
- Thread starter stateofmind
- Start date
Yes, but you are forgetting everything in the Universe is changing position (is in motion), and that your experience of duration is directly attributable to motions of at least your bodily functions including brain waves. Even if we alter your scenario and say the Universe and everything in it including photons stopped moving, you as the observer experiencing/counting time, is where the time reference is attributed and that is due to motion you experience. If we examine a Universe void of any motion (macro and micro) then it is stopped in time too. How would anyone or anything completely void of motion account for any time or change (motion) when there was none (note we wouldn't even be able to observe such a Universe because photons would stop moving in that imagined example)?
You misrepresent my statement*, insult without evidence or scientific reasoning, infer authority of your knowledge while demonstrating none, and claim to understand yet your post was void of even the smallest iota of any scientific reasoning or explanation (it was a post of emotion not reasoning). Scientific methodology would demand such comments be disregarded, and that post was truly "irrelevant" to the discussion. In the future please try to make a scientific point and keep your "feelings" in check.
*My Comments brucep misrepresented as my saying "physics is tantamount to magic"
Last edited:
These are good and relevant questions; I’d like to answer using my examinations of time, concluding thus far it is a unit measurement or description of a change in position (motion). I will keep my replies short, if you want a deeper explanation please ask.
Empirically the answer would be no
No, it describes a natural force (the change of position of energy (energy of all forms)
Yes; however not because of time but because of energy causing motion; energy and its motion is the fundamental cause of change. Time describes or measures that motion, analogous to saying mass describes or measures a quantity of energy. Remember some form of energy in both cases is the fundamental phenomena; mass and time are a description or measurement of it.
No, again strictly speaking empirically, to observe or make a measurement requires motion, of light, of action, etc. To describe that motion we need to use some concept or measurement such as time.
I have yet to see how any empirical change can occur without motion; however looking at causality the cause of motion and the object of motion is energy, space is a venue, and time is its description. Specifically a unit measure of time is a relative measure of motion being a ratio of a change in position and its magnitude within a distance.
Although the nature of time has been the subject of much debate throughout the ages, I tend to agree with the above.....The physicality of both time and space, and space/time as a 4D entity affects us every moment of everyday, in everything we do.
Just as length, breadth and height map the "space" an object takes, so to does the 4th dimension time, map the "when"
So its rather curious why some people say that time is not real, while taking the opposite view of the other three dimensions.
None are "material" by nature, but all are "real" by there effects, and compulsory nature in everyday life and physics.
I hope that makes sense.
In my opinion the advent of SR and the proven validated fact that we have no Universal now, as Newton thought, showed the physical nature of time.
In the context you are using time, saying time is not real is analogous to saying mass is not real, and of course I would agree in such a context they are both real. However look deeper at both, the underlying core reality they describe is energy, mass describes a quantity of energy, and time describes a change of position of energy. Because the properties of any change in position are distance and a magnitude of the change in that distance, to describe this one must use distance (space) in conjunction with time, exactly because SR evidence has shown they are both relative. So space-time represents the description of something very real too.
I have no desire to argue philosophically the context of how we can define time as real or not real, which is what this type of debate often leads too. I wish to focus on trying to point out and discuss what are the empirical and fundamental components of time. What I have discussed, and examined, I believe to be compatible with the experimental evidence of SR, and the equations that describe that evidence. If I become aware of experimental evidence that is not, I would certainly back off on the idea of time being a description or measurement of motion (please note that since the motion of energy is real its description must also define something real).
P.S. As I noted in my reply, bruce misstated my resolve to examine empirical evidence as an attack on physics, it was not. I clearly didn't say physics, and certainly didn't intend to imply the whole or most of physics (if anyone thinks I did). That implication was conjured by bruce during one of his tantrums. Even Nobel wining physicists have said that some implications of it mathematics are mystical and a contradiction to our everyday experience of reality.
Last edited:
Good morning, paddoboy, Maxilla, everyone. 
Paddoboy, I think (please correct me/clarify if I am reading you wrong there, Maxilla!) the whole context and thrust of what Maxilla is trying to get across is that one must be careful to distinguish between fundamental physical 'natural properties' and non-fundamental 'conceptual attributes' when it comes to things like 'time' as physicists conceive/use it in their modeling/graphing etc analyses of the natural dynamics under observation/analysis. As to what is fundamental and what is conceptual in this context...
Consider these two questions, the answers to which will highlight the fundamental/non-fundamental nature (as the case may be) of energy-space dimensions and so-called 'time dimension'....
If the universe 'froze' into a non-reconfiguring (ie, absolutely static) arrangement of all its component parts/features/processes:
- would the 'energy-space extent/relativities' still be there separating the frozen-in-place constituents where they were when it froze up? If so, then the energy-space dimensions have real INDEPENDENT fundamental properties whether we are there to observe, mathematically graph/analyze, or otherwise make conceptual connections between the constituents respective/comparative locations/motions under study.
- would 'time/timing values/relativities' still be there if everything froze up absolutely as gedanked? If not, then time and timing values/relativities have NO INDEPENDENT fundamental properties, but rather only potential non-fundamental conceptual attributes in a future non-frozen universe inhabited by humans/observers who ABSTRACTLY CONSTRUCT such non-fundamental 'dimensions' for mathematical graphing/analysis convenience.
SIDE NOTE: Paddo, do you remember my pointing out to chinglu (in the "Gravity Slows Down Time" thread) that the problem in his argument/understanding of the examples was that it was HE himself who brought NON-fundamental 'connections' to the independent data sets? And that it was HE himself who confused his own ABSTRACT CONNECTION 'interpretations/overlays' such that he conflated the INDEPENDENT physical essentials with HIS SUBJECTIVE interpretational 'connections' that caused his confusion and claims based on same were subjective not independent?
I mention that because it appears that you and some others are basically doing similar thing here, when trying to bring non-fundamental subjective abstract analytical convenience 'dimensional concepts/constructs' like 'time/timing' into the understanding of the actual fundamental INDEPENDENT dimensional physicality extents/relativities of the real energy-space dimensions that exist without any dependence on abstract human observation/analysis constructs like 'time/timing'.
Anyhow, just thought a timely caution/reminder (about what is fundamental physical independent dimensions, and what is non-fundamental abstract dependent so-called 'dimension' in this context) was in order at this juncture in the discourse, guys!
Keep up the great discussion; and good luck and good thinking to you all...and enjoy your polite and interesting internet discussions wherever you have them!
Paddoboy, I think (please correct me/clarify if I am reading you wrong there, Maxilla!) the whole context and thrust of what Maxilla is trying to get across is that one must be careful to distinguish between fundamental physical 'natural properties' and non-fundamental 'conceptual attributes' when it comes to things like 'time' as physicists conceive/use it in their modeling/graphing etc analyses of the natural dynamics under observation/analysis. As to what is fundamental and what is conceptual in this context...
Consider these two questions, the answers to which will highlight the fundamental/non-fundamental nature (as the case may be) of energy-space dimensions and so-called 'time dimension'....
If the universe 'froze' into a non-reconfiguring (ie, absolutely static) arrangement of all its component parts/features/processes:
- would the 'energy-space extent/relativities' still be there separating the frozen-in-place constituents where they were when it froze up? If so, then the energy-space dimensions have real INDEPENDENT fundamental properties whether we are there to observe, mathematically graph/analyze, or otherwise make conceptual connections between the constituents respective/comparative locations/motions under study.
- would 'time/timing values/relativities' still be there if everything froze up absolutely as gedanked? If not, then time and timing values/relativities have NO INDEPENDENT fundamental properties, but rather only potential non-fundamental conceptual attributes in a future non-frozen universe inhabited by humans/observers who ABSTRACTLY CONSTRUCT such non-fundamental 'dimensions' for mathematical graphing/analysis convenience.
SIDE NOTE: Paddo, do you remember my pointing out to chinglu (in the "Gravity Slows Down Time" thread) that the problem in his argument/understanding of the examples was that it was HE himself who brought NON-fundamental 'connections' to the independent data sets? And that it was HE himself who confused his own ABSTRACT CONNECTION 'interpretations/overlays' such that he conflated the INDEPENDENT physical essentials with HIS SUBJECTIVE interpretational 'connections' that caused his confusion and claims based on same were subjective not independent?
I mention that because it appears that you and some others are basically doing similar thing here, when trying to bring non-fundamental subjective abstract analytical convenience 'dimensional concepts/constructs' like 'time/timing' into the understanding of the actual fundamental INDEPENDENT dimensional physicality extents/relativities of the real energy-space dimensions that exist without any dependence on abstract human observation/analysis constructs like 'time/timing'.
Anyhow, just thought a timely caution/reminder (about what is fundamental physical independent dimensions, and what is non-fundamental abstract dependent so-called 'dimension' in this context) was in order at this juncture in the discourse, guys!
Keep up the great discussion; and good luck and good thinking to you all...and enjoy your polite and interesting internet discussions wherever you have them!
Time, like space, can also be modeled with three dimensions. This creates more thorough way to define the entire state of a system with one coordinate system.
With space, we begin with 0-D space, which is a point in space. The time parallel or 0-D time is a point in time. We can capture this with a still photo. A point in space is harder to capture since it is so small.
Next, 1-D space is a line in geometry. With respect to time, this reflects a time line, such as occur with changes of state. The 1-D line is also connected to velocity and frequency since velocity is d/t and frequency is 1/t. Both only use one unit of time.
At 2-D we have a plane of space like the x.y plane. With respect to time this is implicit of 2 units of time, or 2-D time is an acceleration which is d/t/t. All forces occur in 2-D time, except the entropic force.
The last is 3-D which for space is a volume of space. For time this is d/t/t/t which is an acceleration of an acceleration. The main example in the universe is the effect of gravity (acceleration) within an accelerating expanding universe.
With space, we begin with 0-D space, which is a point in space. The time parallel or 0-D time is a point in time. We can capture this with a still photo. A point in space is harder to capture since it is so small.
Next, 1-D space is a line in geometry. With respect to time, this reflects a time line, such as occur with changes of state. The 1-D line is also connected to velocity and frequency since velocity is d/t and frequency is 1/t. Both only use one unit of time.
At 2-D we have a plane of space like the x.y plane. With respect to time this is implicit of 2 units of time, or 2-D time is an acceleration which is d/t/t. All forces occur in 2-D time, except the entropic force.
The last is 3-D which for space is a volume of space. For time this is d/t/t/t which is an acceleration of an acceleration. The main example in the universe is the effect of gravity (acceleration) within an accelerating expanding universe.
Einstein once wrote something like the following about time, which I think is very succinct and pretty much describes it.
The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.
It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered undefined primitive terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.
Note that an axiomatic system requires some undefined primitive terms to avoid various logical problems associated with circular definitions.
It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.
The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.
It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered undefined primitive terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.
Note that an axiomatic system requires some undefined primitive terms to avoid various logical problems associated with circular definitions.
It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.
That's stretching the friendship a tiny bit undefined. Chinglu [as everyone agrees] was inferring that clocks are somehow tied to the motions of the Earth/Sun/Moon.
The debate about time has been going on for centuries actually, and I will admit that no real proper definition openly accepted by all scientists appears eminent as yet.
Again, I take the stand that time at its most simplistic, separates events and the past, present and future.....
It can be gravitationally time dilated, and of course there is never any Universal "now"
So from where I sit/stand, I see SR/GR confirming the physical reality of time, although non material by nature, it is certainly real by observation of its effects.
I also don't see anything in cryogenics and shrimps frozen or not...that to me has more to do with energy and thermodynamics and 0,K.....
In other words if absolute zero could be obtained, I don't believe that would halt the passage of time.
Like I said, the whole issue of time has been debated for ages, without an accepted view by all.
No association between you and chinglu was expressly made, mate! I was just cautioning on the similarity of bringing subjective/philosophical DEPENDENT notions/dimensions/connections etc and somehow falling into the trap of coming to think of them 'real' things on a par with the other REALLY real INDEPENDENT things which my example/questions highlighted were fundamentally different things.Like Einstein said: Time is an illusion, but a persistent one.
As far as I know, illusions are not 'real', they only represent something real from which the illusion is ABSTRACTED. And as far as I know, there is only UN-real 'illusion, and not any 'real' illusion. Or is there?
Oh, before I log out ("time flies", doesn't it!....another illusion.
), you said above...paddoboy said:
...(my bolding), I suggest you may have back-to-front, mate. It is the 'timing' that is the 'effect' OF motion observed/compared. See? Time/timing is the effect of our observation/analysis construct which merely studies motions which occur in the real energy-space dimension/dynamical reality (which is not an abstract construct like our abstract time/timing construct).
As for coming to an accepted-by-all concept: How about Maxilla's? It works and is based on demonstrable reality without illusory overlays? Just a suggestion.
By the way, I have long pointed out the difference between PHYSICS TIME/TIMING concept/abstraction and the PHILOSOPHICAL DURATION concept per se (the philosophical concept exists in our minds irrespective of PROCESS or manifestation/embodiment of Duration in specific processes which can be compared by physicists to choose interval standards FROM some process and compare others to same as a PHYSICAL TIME/TIMING process/convenience for PARSING the otherwise purely philosophical DURATION CONCEPT in particular situations/dynamics under study).
Gotta go. Back tomorrow I hope. Cheers, paddo!
No I wasn't inferring that sort of comparison....I was speaking of the legitimacy of the claims...his and mine
Time and what it is, has been debated for quite a while.
Both sides have a lot going for them.
Yes he did.....But in what manner was he inferring...or was he deriding the "illusion" tag.
Remember he also said, "Imagination is more important then knowledge" but I'm sure he was again just trying to highlight the importance of Imagination, in partnership with knowledge and Innovation. They all go hand in hand, and none can progress without the other.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I still have not heard anyone address the question if time exists in the future, except as an abstract concept. Einstein's "before and after" are made relative to an event in "the present", but does not address the future, IMO.
The question is if the future already exists in any dynamic form of physical space. If not, then we can only conclude that time comes into existence simultaneously with dynamic change in physical space. This is why Einstein insisted on the term spacetime as an integrated emergent 4D construct "before and after", relative to a "present" spacetime construct.
As layman, I just cannot imagine a "future time" without a "future event", which by definition has not yet occurred . Why would there be need for time for an event which has not yet occurred as physical change.
The question is if the future already exists in any dynamic form of physical space. If not, then we can only conclude that time comes into existence simultaneously with dynamic change in physical space. This is why Einstein insisted on the term spacetime as an integrated emergent 4D construct "before and after", relative to a "present" spacetime construct.
As layman, I just cannot imagine a "future time" without a "future event", which by definition has not yet occurred . Why would there be need for time for an event which has not yet occurred as physical change.
Last edited:
What about thought experiments such as the Twin paradox, which isn't a paradox anyway.
I mean it is only at this time due to lack of technology that we can't do relativistic speeds.
For example a person travelling for 6 months at 99.999%c for 12 months by on board ships clocks, would arrive back on Earth around 225 years later, obviously to an Earth completely different from the one he left.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I understand your argument, but that only shows time is not a constant and dependent on physical conditions and types of change. The point is that you will have arrived back in the present, even though events moved faster in time at the original conditions at the point of origin. Thus we can only speak of "before and after" relative to the present point of origin, but you will not be able to predict what changes will occur in the future 225 years while you are in transit. This is where the uncertainty effect comes into play. Suppose a giant meteor deflects the earth from its orbit and it can no longer be found in orbit at all. But to the people on earth these events will happen in their present time. To the arriving astronaut the earth no longer exists in orbit. Thus Einstein's "before and after" can only be used relative to any fixed present which is a result of that which came before and the causal changes made after the present has passed. In either case we are speaking of the past which is only measurable after the fact.
Empirical evidence is clear and absolute, I can’t conceive of any empirical example or experiment where duration (time) isn't directly attributed to a change in position of energy with magnitude relative to a distance.
Even the “before and after quote” of Einstein boils down to the change of position of energy which solely requires a space to move in. Its description (time) is vital and absolutely necessary for any human understanding and organization of that motion, and we continue confuse that necessity as an empirical role, instead of seeing time (a description and/or measurement of motion) as necessary for our brain to organize and use motions it records, and can rearrange into possible new motions (recorded motions = past, possible new motions = future). In other words when an apple falls from a tree, it only requires energy and space, its change in position has a natural order (trajectory) from the tree to the ground; times vital role is in describing that order it has no empirical cause, effect, or existence other than as the description and organization of that motion recorded in our minds.
P.S. I believe whatever moderator moved a discussion on the nature of time , which is vital to physics, to the Pseudoscience forum, without explanation; made a subjective, and poor decision, even if the they rationalized it as a good one.
Even the “before and after quote” of Einstein boils down to the change of position of energy which solely requires a space to move in. Its description (time) is vital and absolutely necessary for any human understanding and organization of that motion, and we continue confuse that necessity as an empirical role, instead of seeing time (a description and/or measurement of motion) as necessary for our brain to organize and use motions it records, and can rearrange into possible new motions (recorded motions = past, possible new motions = future). In other words when an apple falls from a tree, it only requires energy and space, its change in position has a natural order (trajectory) from the tree to the ground; times vital role is in describing that order it has no empirical cause, effect, or existence other than as the description and organization of that motion recorded in our minds.
P.S. I believe whatever moderator moved a discussion on the nature of time , which is vital to physics, to the Pseudoscience forum, without explanation; made a subjective, and poor decision, even if the they rationalized it as a good one.
It seems to me that you have attempted to present this point of view at sometime, somewhere before.
It is a shame that as simple as it is, it seems beyond the comprehension, of the current discussion.
Maxila, you have the patience of a saint. Anybody disagreeing with Maxila is a idiot head furreal.
BdS
Registered Senior Member
It's best not to confuse nature with modeling theories that are modeling nature.
In nature there is space and energy. Space being an open space and energy occupying that space. Time seems to be the ability of energy to move / transfer in an open space, its as simple as that.
Since we need theories to model what is happening in nature, like relativity theory, we need to make a model of nature to account for what is happening so we can orientate ourselves in this nature. We use models to understand the causes and effects of the events that are occurring or a recorded process of statistics that will occur in energy interactions / reactions. We have atomic models that will predict the outcome of reactions, interactions, etc... the only reason these theories work is because nature is MECHANICAL and always obeys laws which govern how energy / matter affects other energy / matter in space. Our main goal is to quantise what all the energies are doing and this requires great precision and requires including all the effects energy / matter are experiencing, if we miss any effects our accounting will not balance and theory will be incomplete.
Like relativity theory uses space time to model nature, it is not nature. It uses 3 dimensions of space as a coordinate system to measure the 1 dimension of time to represent how energies / matter are moving in space coordinates. The 1 time dimension is the amount of motion that occurred for the matter / energy in space, like a 1 dimensional vector representing the motion of objects in 3 dimensional space.
To relativity model time is the fourth dimension, but in nature time is only the transfer of energy that occurred in space. Because of how nature works humans need to make an increment of "time" (1 second) to measure how long it took for the matter / energy to move that distance so we can account for the transfer of energy over the 1 second duration. This is where it becomes tricky, because we dont only need to know how the object moved we need to account for the amount of energy that was moved or transferred. Thats what time dilation is doing, its saying there was a change in the quantity of energy that was moving or transferred in the system on the atomic scale and we need to account for it or our models will not balance. Time dilation is saying that if time is dilated then the object experiencing the dilation is evolving (aging) slower / faster because the reduced / increased transfer of energy inside the objects atomic lattice is effecting how the object is processing its aging in nature. All the effects on the processes of energy transfer must be accounted for in theories and not forgetting the theories are models trying to do the accounting of energy transformations.
If that is not what relativity theory or nature is saying then I dont understand what its doing... Just my opinion...
Transformation
In
Mechanical
Energies
In nature there is space and energy. Space being an open space and energy occupying that space. Time seems to be the ability of energy to move / transfer in an open space, its as simple as that.
Since we need theories to model what is happening in nature, like relativity theory, we need to make a model of nature to account for what is happening so we can orientate ourselves in this nature. We use models to understand the causes and effects of the events that are occurring or a recorded process of statistics that will occur in energy interactions / reactions. We have atomic models that will predict the outcome of reactions, interactions, etc... the only reason these theories work is because nature is MECHANICAL and always obeys laws which govern how energy / matter affects other energy / matter in space. Our main goal is to quantise what all the energies are doing and this requires great precision and requires including all the effects energy / matter are experiencing, if we miss any effects our accounting will not balance and theory will be incomplete.
Like relativity theory uses space time to model nature, it is not nature. It uses 3 dimensions of space as a coordinate system to measure the 1 dimension of time to represent how energies / matter are moving in space coordinates. The 1 time dimension is the amount of motion that occurred for the matter / energy in space, like a 1 dimensional vector representing the motion of objects in 3 dimensional space.
To relativity model time is the fourth dimension, but in nature time is only the transfer of energy that occurred in space. Because of how nature works humans need to make an increment of "time" (1 second) to measure how long it took for the matter / energy to move that distance so we can account for the transfer of energy over the 1 second duration. This is where it becomes tricky, because we dont only need to know how the object moved we need to account for the amount of energy that was moved or transferred. Thats what time dilation is doing, its saying there was a change in the quantity of energy that was moving or transferred in the system on the atomic scale and we need to account for it or our models will not balance. Time dilation is saying that if time is dilated then the object experiencing the dilation is evolving (aging) slower / faster because the reduced / increased transfer of energy inside the objects atomic lattice is effecting how the object is processing its aging in nature. All the effects on the processes of energy transfer must be accounted for in theories and not forgetting the theories are models trying to do the accounting of energy transformations.
If that is not what relativity theory or nature is saying then I dont understand what its doing... Just my opinion...
Transformation
In
Mechanical
Energies
explain birth to death
there's also imaginary time,
imaginary time is a way of looking at the time dimension as if it were a dimension of space