Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

[Grumpy]

Write4U

Perhaps a better term, "a set of standing waves"?

Wouldn't it depend on whether you were observing from the 2d surface toward the 3d "construct" or from the construct looking "downward"? It can be very Alice in Wonderland, you know. It appears very solid up here(usually). I just have to say that while I accept their work, I'm not so sure of some of the "extrapolations" they make, we'll see, the LHC has probably already made the observations that will tell us which way to go, it's just buried in a gigaton of data. If tomorrow the LHC gets sucked into a tiny Black Hole just before it disintegrates into a burst of Hawking Radiation(a low, but not zero probability)the data is stored in a server several miles away. Er, come to think of it, they might want to move it a little farther out, the moon might survive it.

Grumpy

 

[Maxila]

If space/time and time do not really exist, what then did the results of GP-B tell us?
Didn't it measure the amount of space/time curvature that the Earth causes, and also the amount of twisting of space/time [Lense Thirring Effect] that the rotating Earth caused?
It may not be a concrete reality similar to the Moon, or your car, but its effects are real and measurable, are they not?

Yes it did; however think about what that spacetime curvature (or twisting) in conjunction to what I said? It is topological space, or a set of locations that can be predicted, or verified as predicted by the mathematics of GR. In other words I agree with Einstein’s assessment I quoted above (to paraphrase), that spacetime (the coordinates) have no existence on its own, rather it shows the effects of a gravitational field, and relative motion (forms of energy), and how they both influence locations (spacetime), and that motion to locations (spacetime) is relative too. Because those locations graph to a curve doesn’t mean they are an entity, the entity is still only energy and its behavior in space, by definition the room to move.

Everything empirical about what it (spacetime) describes is real, but in and of itself, it is as real as language or mathematics, I believe they all are not a physical entities or phenomena, rather they are a framework used to understand and communicate physical phenomenon. Those things are essential for our minds to function; however I submit the Universe does not need mathematics, or language, or spacetime to function, we need them to observe, describe, and understand its functions, and that necessity can make them seem as real as the phenomenon they describe.

Even if you don’t agree with my assessment I sincerely appreciate you trying to evaluate it and not give into our nature (human nature) that is to summarily dismiss what is in disagreement to what we already believe. I try hard to understand counter views and their arguments when they are presented, I may not be the best judge of my success at it; however I sincerely try and I wish more people would too, thank you.

Grumpy:

Time is a dimension of the 4 dimensional manifold we call spacetime

That just means topological space (locations); my view that spacetime is only locations, and not an entity, is pertinent to almost all your points in the post ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...th-dimension&p=3144353&viewfull=1#post3144353 ) as I described above to Paddyboy.

 

[paddoboy]

Even if you don’t agree with my assessment I sincerely appreciate you trying to evaluate it and not give into our nature (human nature) that is to summarily dismiss what is in disagreement to what we already believe. I try hard to understand counter views and their arguments when they are presented, I may not be the best judge of my success at it; however I sincerely try and I wish more people would too, thank you.

.

Hi Maxila.......There have been many great debates between reputable scientists each supporting a certain view. Einstein and Bohr immediatly come to mind.
I see this as one between a two or three obvious knowledgable people on this forum.
As a layman, I must judge on what is said here and elsewhere and yes, that is rather difficult when speaking of quantities such as space and time.
Besides the reasons I already gave [GP-B data] I think I would also be correct in saying without either [space and time or space/time] the Universe would not exist. Do you agree?
Anyway, nice discussing with some knowledgable people for a change. cheers

 

[krash661]

Sean Carroll, a senior research associate at the California Institute of Technology, sheds light into the "dark side" of the universe that may actually be the key to unlocking the mystery that is the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwyTaSt0XxE

 

[Grumpy]

Maxila

That just means topological space (locations); my view that spacetime is only locations, and not an entity, is pertinent to almost all your points in the post ( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....=1#post3144353 ) as I described above to Paddyboy.

Spacetime exists, it is the coordinates we give to it that are not real. Spacetime contain the locations our made up coordinate systems describe. But spacetime IS the Universe, whether we assign coordinates to it in order to measure it or not. Time is an integral part of our Universe, motion can not occur in it's absence, nor energy change in any way when it is not flowing(as at lightspeed or at the EH of a Black Hole). So motion/change requires time to already exist or the very first motion/change can not occur. Motion/change requires time to occur WITHIN, it needs space for events to occur WITHIN. Spacetime is the stage where the play of events takes place. That you deny the reality that Cosmology shows us is not a fault with us, you are just wrong. You're not going to overturn the conclusions we've reached since Einstein with rhetoric. And if you are studying Cosmology, your professor is going to luv you. Please read a Brief History of Time, you'll find the best understanding there of what time and spacetime are(and are not)to the best of our current knowledge. You need to thoroughly understand the main road before you start off on an unmarked trail. And stay away from Greene until you have that understanding, he extrapolates a bit too much. But he does understand the Quantum as well as anyone else(it's still squishy).

And think on this, the Big Bang began in the Quantum, what does that tell us about the first few femtoseconds of Expansion?

Grumpy

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

The present is everywhere. Everything has its own present. You move forward into the present. You move sideways into the present. Energy spins in a stationary point.

 

[OnlyMe]

Maxila



Spacetime exists, it is the coordinates we give to it that are not real. Spacetime contain the locations our made up coordinate systems describe. But spacetime IS the Universe, whether we assign coordinates to it in order to measure it or not. Time is an integral part of our Universe, motion can not occur in it's absence, nor energy change in any way when it is not flowing(as at lightspeed or at the EH of a Black Hole). So motion/change requires time to already exist or the very first motion/change can not occur. Motion/change requires time to occur WITHIN, it needs space for events to occur WITHIN. Spacetime is the stage where the play of events takes place. That you deny the reality that Cosmology shows us is not a fault with us, you are just wrong. You're not going to overturn the conclusions we've reached since Einstein with rhetoric. And if you are studying Cosmology, your professor is going to luv you. Please read a Brief History of Time, you'll find the best understanding there of what time and spacetime are(and are not)to the best of our current knowledge. You need to thoroughly understand the main road before you start off on an unmarked trail. And stay away from Greene until you have that understanding, he extrapolates a bit too much. But he does understand the Quantum as well as anyone else(it's still squishy).

And think on this, the Big Bang began in the Quantum, what does that tell us about the first few femtoseconds of Expansion?

Grumpy

Grumpy,

Time is fundamentally a comparison of of two rates of change, which makes it "relative". One an agreed upon standard, our clocks, and the other some observed change compared to that standard.

Change does occur, with out without observation, but time does not occur without that fundamental comparison, which makes it a conceptualization of the rate of observed change.

Within most of the mathematics associated with these discussions, generally either that of SR and/or GR, the agreed upon standard becomes c.., which becomes an abstract standard for both time and distance, and where very often the clocks become imaginary. The observation of the rate of change is relative to "frame of reference", while most of the change associated with time is not frame dependent.

The changes in distance between two objects in motion relative to one another is fixed, while the clocks used by observers associated with each object may not agree on the elapsed time. The time associated with the change is relative while the change itself is absolute.

Relativity, incorporates observer dependent frames of reference for observations of both space and time. That makes both SR and GR subjective perspectives. They are descriptions of the world from where we observe it. There is no Newtonian fixed background frame of reference for time or space, that is available to us. We are fish, in a fish bowl and thus limited to the best subjective frame of reference available.., described well by SR and GR.

Don't take this last, to suggest that I believe there is any fixed Newtonian background. I used that reference only to emphasize the fact that we are limited to a relativistic frame of reference. This is all that is real from where and how we observe the world.

 

[Maxila]

Spacetime exists, it is the coordinates we give to it that are not real. Spacetime contain the locations our made up coordinate systems describe. But spacetime IS the Universe, whether we assign coordinates to it in order to measure it or not.

Those arguments support the facts, and evidence I site, yet they insist there is some kind of ethereal existence beyond what they show? Even your passion in them is apparent (science should avoid passion in evaluating how things work). When you examine facts and evidence, they show spacetime is no more a real entity than Cartesian space is, they both define locations in space. When you strip it down spacetime is Cartesian coordinates with an added time coordinate, the extra location information doesn’t make it more real than Cartesian coordinates, just a more accurate way to describe the location of energy in space. Look closely at the empirical evidence of what time is composed of (to avoid circular definition words); it’s a relative change of position with magnitude in respect to distance. Time (durations, frequency, etc.) empirically can be observed to be an increment of a change in position of some form of energy (i.e. an increment like one Earth rotation, or a pendulum, etc.); it’s a quantized change of position with a magnitude of that change in position. The magnitude is what we end up defining as speed, or time (two sides of the same coin). It all represents a change of position energy within a distance.

Time is an integral part of our Universe, motion can not occur in it's absence… Motion/change requires time to occur WITHIN

Here again is where many confuse what is required for observation, understanding, and communication (time), from what is observed. The evidence is only of energy and space for an apple to fall, time is inferred as real because we require the organizational framework for the data of many recorded instants to be reconstructed properly. Causality of the evidence shows us the apple is energy, needed energy (gravity), and room to fall (space). Our reconstruction of it (the data of many instants) requires a framework (data organization) of time, therefore it “feels real”; just as spacetime coordinates “feel real”. Do not confuse what describes and defines real things, with being a real thing; analogous to mathematics in physics describing real things yet being a framework of description, not a real entity. I know it is difficult to separate what we unconditionally require (time) to understand events, from what is actually observed to cause them (energy and space).

And think on this, the Big Bang began in the Quantum, what does that tell us about the first few femtoseconds of Expansion?

Here again is where I think we simply push GR beyond its domain of applicability, like we do when we get a singularity at the center of a BH. Is there evidence the Universe is expanding and has expanded from a more condensed state, yes. Was that beginning state ever infinitely dense and infinitely small, tantamount to what is mathematical nonsense, I believe it was likely not. We are simply pushing (extrapolating) GR far beyond its intended domain, and what it is capable of defining. Here again you can only site faith in such a state (all energy of the Universe was infinitely dense and small), because certainly it is beyond experiment or real understanding.

We shouldn’t site GR as absolute evidence for fantastical things we want to believe, when we know it has limits being compatible with a successful theory like quantum mechanics. The evidence shows that GR likely has limits to its domain of applicability and we don’t know exactly what they are? Knowing that SR is compatible with QM, is another indication we have more to understand about the possible limits to GR’s applicable domain?

 

[Grumpy]

OnlyMe

Time is fundamentally a comparison of of two rates of change, which makes it "relative". One an agreed upon standard, our clocks, and the other some observed change compared to that standard.

A MEASUREMENT OF TIME(time's rate)is fundamentally a comparison of of two rates of change, which makes it "relative". One an agreed upon standard, our clocks, and the other some observed change compared to that standard. Time is where the changes in physical systems that you are comparing occur. And events need time to in which to occur(exist), but time does not need events to continue passing, it just means you are no longer able to make any measurement of it's rate. There are lots of things that we cannot measure directly in this Universe. If we are in empty space we cannot measure the local rate by local events. We can be lightyears from the nearest matter. But in reality, we can still see time passing in any good telescope. We can easily see well known pulsars that keep excellent time, and even though we are lightyears from the nearest matter(the nearest events), that pulsar will give you a very exact time from billions of lightyears away. Only if you were in a completely dead and dark Universe would that not show that time passes for the Universe as a whole, not for separate events within that Universe. Time is the "floor" of the stage on which events play out, the now and that is true whether the stage is empty and the lights are out, or on a SRO sold out night.

Change does occur, with out without observation, but time does not occur without that fundamental comparison, which makes it a conceptualization of the rate of observed change.

Er...No. Do not confuse the map(your measurement)for the territory(Time itself).

In a very real sense lightspeed and time are inversely relative to each other. Increase any mass's speed and it's experienced time will slow, if you stop accelerating the mass it's time will remain slower, if you get near lightspeed the mass will only experience very slow time. The dimensions of that mass will flatten in the direction of travel and the cross sectional disk will get bigger with added energy, but the harder you accelerate the less additional speed you will achieve and the more energy it requires, the higher the total energy the greater the mass to accelerate, it's an endless cycle that means you can never reach lightspeed, but you won't notice, your time is all but stopped. As you slow down your time will speed back up, all the way down to a standstill with local spacetime. Space is also tied just as tightly to that value, mass at lightspeed warps space infinitely, too(or would if it were ever to occur). Mass is equivalent to energy by the square of lightspeed, whatever units of measure you use. Both lightspeed and time are built into the Universe, not caused by events within that Universe. The Universe IS spacetime, plus contaminants, trace elements, material doping on a non-material substrate, the burning embers of a huge explosion circling the drains that are Black Holes. And it is one piece, complete with time and space throughout, even in the empty spots.

Maxila

When you examine facts and evidence, they show spacetime is no more a real entity than Cartesian space is, they both define locations in space.

Wrong. You are still talking about our artificial model of reality, not the reality that model was made to represent in our math. Definition is not a natural process, it is a man made crutch to help us understand nature. Our definitions do not dictate the existence of that being defined. And Relativity effects are REALLY how the Universe operates, spacetime is very real.

Time (durations, frequency, etc.) empirically can be observed to be an increment of a change in position of some form of energy (i.e. an increment like one Earth rotation, or a pendulum, etc.); it’s a quantized change of position with a magnitude of that change in position. The magnitude is what we end up defining as speed, or time (two sides of the same coin).

That is how time is measured, that is not what time is. And you can have speed in space or you can have duration in time on a sliding logarithmic scale with speed through space on one end and the undilated rate of time on the other. Just a fact. But despite not being measured for over 13 billion years before man came along, time managed to pass everywhere in the Universe(except for photons and inside an Event Horizon). Your empirical measurement does not create time, it just measures it's duration.

Here again is where I think we simply push GR beyond its domain of applicability, like we do when we get a singularity at the center of a BH. Is there evidence the Universe is expanding and has expanded from a more condensed state, yes. Was that beginning state ever infinitely dense and infinitely small, tantamount to what is mathematical nonsense, I believe it was likely not. We are simply pushing (extrapolating) GR far beyond its intended domain, and what it is capable of defining. Here again you can only site faith in such a state (all energy of the Universe was infinitely dense and small), because certainly it is beyond experiment or real understanding.

You haven't been paying attention to what we are finding in Cosmology, have you. Hot and Dense it was, very very small as well. The CMB is uniform to a really fine degree, this is only possible if the Universe and all it contained were in intimate contact with, well, itself. It could not have happened if it started at any other size, the differences in temperature could not have spanned the lightyears to reach such smoothness. And the differences we do see were probably a result of the slight graininess of matter distribution AFTER the Expansion. Which means it began even smoother than it already appears. Again, the only way that could be is if it started very, very small(for such a uniform temperature), very very hot(as calculated by deduction from the remaining residual heat)and very very dense(as we see by direct observation, there's a reason that almost all Quasars are in early eras, lots of food). And there's a 32 billion solar mass supermassive Black Hole sitting a couple of billion lys from the Big Bang that is eating at least a solar system's mass every day, it is the most massive object known in the Universe and there's no telling how large it is wherever it is 10 billion years later than when we see it. It was last seen travelling a significant fraction of lightspeed away from us(due to the expansion of space, not anything travelling in local spacetime), thankfully. One proton's mass or equivalent energy per qubic yard and falling on average. Matter and energy are simply insignificant to the Universe except for the gravity they produce and only four percent of that gravity is produced by the matter you or I are familiar with, 25% of the rest seem to interface with reality almost exclusively through it's gravity, the rest of the gravity is kind of strange, because the energy that causes it is applied to counter gravity over long distances and push gravity bound systems further apart. And it's winning.

Grumpy

 

[Maxila]

You haven't been paying attention to what we are finding in Cosmology, have you

I have been paying close attention and you haven't made a single argument or stated information that I haven't already considered and debated with myself. I started out with your view and I believed it emphatically. However in making an object analysis of the empirical facts, and other evidence, the fundamental nature almost slaps you in the face.... If you're willing to look honestly (it is human nature to summarily dismiss what is not in agreement with we already believe (think we know) regardless of the facts, many studies have shown this).

Instead of trying to analyze the simplest explanation (Ocamm's Razor), supported by empirical facts, that can be tested and verified by experiment. You choose to rationalize the fantastical, what is beyond understanding, what cannot be observed or tested, and shows clear evidence of limitations, as the proof of your argument. The deviation in Mercury's orbital percession indicated Newtonian gravitation may have been limited in its application, an objective investigator would consider unimaginable extrapolations may indicate the limit of that theory too? It is not good science to have unconditional faith in what can't be proven, tested, or observed, when possible explanations exists that can be analyzed and experimentally tested.

My frustration comes, not in that the Universe may be more complex beyond human ability to know or understand it, I consider that possibility all the time; it is that you never made a, how, why, or what, type of argument to my viewpoint, instead you only rationalized unknowable, improvable predictions to support your belief. I know we are both are likely to continue rehashing the same reasoning, so please make a reply if you'd like to have the final word; however I will not reply to it unless you indicate you'd like me too in order to end this debate that is becoming very circular.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Grumpy, Maxila, Write4U, everyone. Just stopping by to post this FYI and then be off again.

I already cautioned (in my post #269) that we should not confuse 'structure' with 'dynamics' if we want to avoid cross-purpose exchanges which cause miscommunications/misunderstandings when 'spacetime' is being invoked/discussed. I trust you all understood the implications for discussions of the reality physics!


Now it also seems timely for a caution against confusing 'duration' (philosophical concept) with 'time' (physical process) in order to avoid more cross-purpose exchanges steeped in miscommunications/misunderstandings.

Please now refer to my post to chinglu in the Gravity Slows Down time thread (post #812)...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ws-down-time&p=3130348&highlight=#post3130348

...wherein I also explained that its his confusion between the two that led him to bring in philosophical 'overlays' to his 'understandings' of the physical processes involved, and hence confusing himself as to what's essentially what when considering thee things involving time as distinct from duration per se.


Anyhow, that was for chinglu's benefit at the time. Now, here...

With specific reference to the latest exchanges in this thread between Grumpy, Maxila, OnlyMe etc, I would ask you all to carefully consider:

In a universe where perfect symmetry reigns (ie, in perfect equilibrium where no change is possible), the UNDIFFERENTIATED PHILOSOPHICAL concept of ETERNAL/INFINITE DURATION (ie, 'existence' per se) is valid to posit, but not in any way 'physically present' in any 'process' sense.

Whereas in a universe where symmetry is 'broken' (ie where universal IN-equilibrium, at least transiently/locally if not permanently/globally, results in 'process'), then that philosophical duration concept can be 'parsed' into TIME/TIMING standard units via comparisons of said processes over local/global reaches of the universal energy-space whose rates of processing changes at different rates.

Hence the PHYSICAL PROCESS time/timing is a physical quantity PARSING into finite/variable/relative values OF the PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT duration/existence concept.


So, Grumpy, everyone, when we speak of 'time' existing even though nothing 'changes', it is a cross-purpose confusion, since 'time' does not exist as such, only duration exists as such. The time/timing aspect only arises as a consequence/parsing of duration concept when local/global PROCESS can be 'parsed' into convenient DYNAMICAL QUANTITIES/ENTITIES we humans use in our modeling of said processes.

If there is no change, and the universe were still balanced and unchanging, then only some philosophical concept of DURATION would apply. Time as process rate emerges ONLY once changes occurs/persists.

When a universe breaks symmetry, and so PROCESSES, with OBSERVABLE physical quantities/entities arising/involved, then it is the MEASUREMENT of time/timing which applies....BUT it's important to realize/remember always that such time/timing is essentially really a 'parsing' of the background always present PHILOSOPHICAL DURATION concept which is NOT 'time' as such, since 'time/timing' does NOT arise before process! The duration is philosophical, the time/timing is physical. Two entirely different things which must not be confused when discussing/asserting things in reality physics (as distinct from purely philosophy concepts).

Just thought I'd stop by and remind everyone that DIFFERENTIABLE 'Time/Timing rate' PROCESSES and UNDIFFERENTIATED 'Duration/Existence per se' CONCEPT are two entirely different beasts. The important distinction between the two, as I have highlighted, should be made in future (just like distinction between 'structure' and 'dynamics'?) if we want to avoid further cross-purpose exchanges.


Sorry, have to log out again. Cheers, and enjoy your discussions all!

 

[Grumpy]

Maxila

I have been paying close attention and you haven't made a single argument or stated information that I haven't already considered and debated with myself. I started out with your view and I believed it emphatically. However in making an object analysis of the empirical facts, and other evidence, the fundamental nature almost slaps you in the face.... If you're willing to look honestly (it is human nature to summarily dismiss what is not in agreement with we already believe (think we know) regardless of the facts, many studies have shown this).

Instead of trying to analyze the simplest explanation (Ocamm's Razor), supported by empirical facts, that can be tested and verified by experiment. You choose to rationalize the fantastical, what is beyond understanding, what cannot be observed or tested, and shows clear evidence of limitations, as the proof of your argument. The deviation in Mercury's orbital percession indicated Newtonian gravitation may have been limited in its application, an objective investigator would consider unimaginable extrapolations may indicate the limit of that theory too? It is not good science to have unconditional faith in what can't be proven, tested, or observed, when possible explanations exists that can be analyzed and experimentally tested.

My frustration comes, not in that the Universe may be more complex beyond human ability to know or understand it, I consider that possibility all the time; it is that you never made a, how, why, or what, type of argument to my viewpoint, instead you only rationalized unknowable, improvable predictions to support your belief. I know we are both are likely to continue rehashing the same reasoning, so please make a reply if you'd like to have the final word; however I will not reply to it unless you indicate you'd like me too in order to end this debate that is becoming very circular.

Everything I have posted is or is supported by observations we have made. Time is a real thing you can see, it is physically true that when you look 10 billion ly away, you are seeing that part of the Universe as it existed 10 billion years ago. A direct observation in both time and space. Cosmology is the observation of the past of this Universe, all the way back to the CMB, the first light released by our Universe when the temperature OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE simultaneously dropped to the point that free electrons could hook up with hydrogen ions. Our little patch of spacetime released it's share 13.7 billion years ago. When we look 13.7 billion years away we see THAT patch of spacetime's share BEING released(the light from the actual, physical act of releasing the light from the BB that had been bottled up until then by ionization and free electrons)380,000 years after the beginning of time and space. And if the polarization that's been found in that light can be used as microlensing and polarization has already been used to locate the location of Dark Matter in galaxy clusters and superclusters, we will soon be able to see even closer to the BB, seeing mass accumulations, distributions, structure and possibly even Black Holes before the first stars existed.

The point being I KNOW time is a Universe wide phenomena that can be affected by mass(for that mass's frame)but goes on best in empty space(by actual observation)down into the noise where it cannot be measured at all. Even in empty space the Universe provides clocks that show this(spinning neutron stars are very good clocks). So no sophistry or rhetoric will change that observed fact. Movement and events require time to occur, but time exists independently as part of the underlying structure of the Universe, spacetime whether there are events you can measure or not. It's all moot anyway, there is no point in space or time that are out of the view of any and all events thus no spacetime without events(clocks). Just how big does empty space have to get before time ceases? We can see quasars from 13 billion lys, magnetars from 7+ billion, pulsars from several billion. Or, rather, we see them as they were then. Time is hard to deny when you see it every day, you know.

Grumpy

Now, go on...

 

[Write4U]

Hi Grumpy, Maxila, Write4U, everyone. Just stopping by to post this FYI and then be off again.

I already cautioned (in my post #269) that we should not confuse 'structure' with 'dynamics' if we want to avoid cross-purpose exchanges which cause miscommunications/misunderstandings when 'spacetime' is being invoked/discussed. I trust you all understood the implications for discussions of the reality physics!


Now it also seems timely for a caution against confusing 'duration' (philosophical concept) with 'time' (physical process) in order to avoid more cross-purpose exchanges steeped in miscommunications/misunderstandings.

Please now refer to my post to chinglu in the Gravity Slows Down time thread (post #812)...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ws-down-time&p=3130348&highlight=#post3130348

...wherein I also explained that its his confusion between the two that led him to bring in philosophical 'overlays' to his 'understandings' of the physical processes involved, and hence confusing himself as to what's essentially what when considering thee things involving time as distinct from duration per se.


Anyhow, that was for chinglu's benefit at the time. Now, here...

With specific reference to the latest exchanges in this thread between Grumpy, Maxila, OnlyMe etc, I would ask you all to carefully consider:

In a universe where perfect symmetry reigns (ie, in perfect equilibrium where no change is possible), the UNDIFFERENTIATED PHILOSOPHICAL concept of ETERNAL/INFINITE DURATION (ie, 'existence' per se) is valid to posit, but not in any way 'physically present' in any 'process' sense.

Whereas in a universe where symmetry is 'broken' (ie where universal IN-equilibrium, at least transiently/locally if not permanently/globally, results in 'process'), then that philosophical duration concept can be 'parsed' into TIME/TIMING standard units via comparisons of said processes over local/global reaches of the universal energy-space whose rates of processing changes at different rates.

Hence the PHYSICAL PROCESS time/timing is a physical quantity PARSING into finite/variable/relative values OF the PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT duration/existence concept.


So, Grumpy, everyone, when we speak of 'time' existing even though nothing 'changes', it is a cross-purpose confusion, since 'time' does not exist as such, only duration exists as such. The time/timing aspect only arises as a consequence/parsing of duration concept when local/global PROCESS can be 'parsed' into convenient DYNAMICAL QUANTITIES/ENTITIES we humans use in our modeling of said processes.

If there is no change, and the universe were still balanced and unchanging, then only some philosophical concept of DURATION would apply. Time as process rate emerges ONLY once changes occurs/persists.

When a universe breaks symmetry, and so PROCESSES, with OBSERVABLE physical quantities/entities arising/involved, then it is the MEASUREMENT of time/timing which applies....BUT it's important to realize/remember always that such time/timing is essentially really a 'parsing' of the background always present PHILOSOPHICAL DURATION concept which is NOT 'time' as such, since 'time/timing' does NOT arise before process! The duration is philosophical, the time/timing is physical. Two entirely different things which must not be confused when discussing/asserting things in reality physics (as distinct from purely philosophy concepts).

Just thought I'd stop by and remind everyone that DIFFERENTIABLE 'Time/Timing rate' PROCESSES and UNDIFFERENTIATED 'Duration/Existence per se' CONCEPT are two entirely different beasts. The important distinction between the two, as I have highlighted, should be made in future (just like distinction between 'structure' and 'dynamics'?) if we want to avoid further cross-purpose exchanges.


Sorry, have to log out again. Cheers, and enjoy your discussions all!

I find confirmation of my philosophy that "time comes into existence" during the event (change) or sequence of events. Am I wrong?

 

[Undefined]

Everything I have posted is or is supported by observations we have made. Time is a real thing you can see, it is physically true that when you look 10 billion ly away, you are seeing that part of the Universe as it existed 10 billion years ago.

...

Hi Grumpy.

No mate, what you 'see' is space distances of varying extents in all directions. And what you see 'in' that spatial extent is events/features transiently distributed (ie, dynamically moving/changing) across energy-space locations/states. Period.

Any specific 'time' is brought by you the observer as an abstract comparison to some 'timing' standard/extrapolation of/between those processes/motions across energy-space over the dynamical activity in spatial extents under study. And any 'universal' time (ie, DURATION or 'existence' per se) is a philosophical concept, as I explained in my previous post. Neither of these can be 'seen' in anything/anywhere. The comparisons of processing rates (time) and the philosophical existence concept (duration) are both 'overlain' by YOU and ME and all observers, on the observations/thinking/modeling of said processes of/in energy-space which is all that you really 'see'.

In short, you don't 'see' time anywhere, you compare PROCESSING RATES and you imagine Philosophical duration underlying the universal existence per se (irrespective of whether universe 'began' or is 'eternal'). There is no time, only comparisons of motions/rates which you tie together philosophically into a 'universal time' (duration) in order to understand the linear evolution of the universe from 'earlier' to 'later'. When you 'look into the far universe' you just see evolution of THERE compared to HERE. That's all. energy-space dynamics/locations. Not 'time', unless you compare 'something' to 'something else' according to standard rates of change/motion dynamics/processes in/of energy-space degrees of freedom.

 

[Undefined]

I find confirmation of my philosophy that "time comes into existence" during the event (change) or sequence of events. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong about 'time/timing' as far as I can see. But again, please also keep in mind what I explained about the totally different philosophical concept of underlying 'duration' per se, which can be said to be the philosophical idea of an 'eternal background state of existence per se' whether or not there is motion/events taking place in a universe, or even if a universe 'exists' at all as we know it. Good luck, Write4U, everyone!

 

[Grumpy]

Undefined

No mate, what you 'see' is space distances of varying extents in all directions. And what you see 'in' that spatial extent is events/features transiently distributed (ie, dynamically moving/changing) across energy-space locations/states. Period.

Foolish, nearly incomprehensible gibberish. Go outside and look at the sun. You are seeing the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, not as it is now. THAT is a fact. If you stood outside looking at the sun at the moment it went nova, you would know nothing about that event for 8 whole minutes. The sun is 8 light minutes away from you in time. When you look at ANYTHING, you are seeing it in the dimension of time, specifically, the past. And an event 10 billion ly away is being seen as it was 10 billion years ago, so how you can say that time is not a visible distance is beyond understanding. We do not see all of space at all points in time, but we do see all times at various points in space. Time is a physical distance in spacetime. If you want to observe the events in the Universe from a billion years ago, focus your telescope at a billion lys distance and make some popcorn. You could theoretically observe historic events on Earth from thousands of years ago simply by going that many lys away and training your telescope Earthward(the problems are technological, it's hard to see detail from that far away and the distance is hard to cross instantly). So the claim time does not exist and is not easily seen is ridiculously easy to falsify just by the evidence of your own lyin' eyes.

Any specific 'time' is brought by you the observer as an abstract comparison to some 'timing' standard/extrapolation of/between those processes/motions across energy-space over the dynamical activity in spatial extents under study

Any specific MEASUREMENT of time... You guys can't tell a map from the territory that map describes. Yes, any MEASUREMENT of time we do is an abstract(IE a map), but time itself doesn't give a crap about what you are or are not measuring, or if there are any events to measure(a condition it is nearly impossible to arrange as the Universe is one single thing, there are always events to measure detectable everywhere), it continues to pass regardless(the territory). You are QUANTIFYING time, not causing it.

And any 'universal' time (ie, DURATION or 'existence' per se) is a philosophical concept, as I explained in my previous post.

If by Universal, you mean time for the Universe as a whole? It's time passage is visible every day, most of spacetime is incredibly empty and the Universe as a whole plods steadily toward the future at a near maximum rate(there is some matter to dilate the whole thing just a bit). If by universal you mean the same everywhere in that Universe, I have never claimed any universal time, I have been trying to illustrate that time is variable by movement, mass or energy. In fact any amount of those causes time to slow in the relevant frame. If any amount causes time to slow, then it is entirely logical that zero events means zero dilation. There is no universal maximum rate, the Universe has mass in it, but there is a LOCAL MAXIMUM RATE OF TIME'S PASSAGE, which is the rate in the absence of local dilation(IE empty space). I have asked several times at what point does time dilate to infinity(IE stop passing), what is the lower limit of mass where it suddenly reverses it's prior behavior(faster rate with less mass)to crash to a stop? You're claiming that time does not exist absent events and is totally a man made thing. I call bull poop.

The comparisons of processing rates (time) and the philosophical existence concept (duration) are both 'overlain' by YOU and ME and all observers, on the observations/thinking/modeling of said processes of/in energy-space which is all that you really 'see'.

You are so far in the weeds that you can't see the main road any more. Our thoughts have nothing to do with observed reality, we are not evolved to understand reality outside of that we experience, so we make maps of new territory to reduce it to a size that fits between our ears. But when you lose sight of the fact that the map is not the territory. You are talking about the map we made, I am speaking of what the actual territory is. I am well aware that what we see does not at this particular moment in time any longer exist in the form we observe. I just spoke about a 32 billion solar mass BH just 2 billion years after the start of spacetime. It is no longer a 32 billion mass BH, it is much, much bigger(10 billion years of eating galaxies does that, you know), estimates scare the crap out of those who try to make them. It's sitting in an intersection of the weblike streams of matter that honeycomb the Universe, they should probably be described as rivers of matter flowing toward that BH, within 100 million lys of that hole there is estimated to be 250 billion galactic masses(our galaxy weights approximately 4 billion solar masses, our BH is about 4 million solar masses), most of it in very large galaxies with their own monstrously large BHs, most of that is probably in the galaxy of the biggest BH and a good bit is probably in the BH by now. Back to the old light cone, we can only know or deal with events in time as they arrive here.

You are simply wrong, time exists as a structural property of the Universe itself, no matter what you have to do to make it comprehensible to a monkey brain.

Grumpy

 

[Maxila]

Now it also seems timely for a caution against confusing 'duration' (philosophical concept) with 'time' (physical process)

I have never been given an example (empirical), or been able to conceive of any empirical example, where a duration is not associated with the change of position of energy? Keep in mind for any event, it is the point where a reference to the duration was referred that must be looked at. If you believe it is possible to refer to an empirical situation where a duration can pass without a change of position of energy, posting an example might be a good point of investigative discussion?

P.S. I like what you tried to point out about there being a difference to what can exist as concept and what can be observed to be physically real.

 

[Maxila]

I find confirmation of my philosophy that "time comes into existence" during the event (change) or sequence of events. Am I wrong?

My investigation of the evidence has indicated that time is the measure or description of the event, they are observed as being coincident (time and the event). However the event is always composed of energy changing position in space, and as I quoted Einstein saying spacetime does exist on its own rather it describes the dynamics of a field (he was referring to the energy of a gravitational field), I have seen time is the same with no existence on its own but rather it is a description for any change of position of energy ( all empirical evidence supports that conclusion). Keep in mind a change of position of energy is the root of all change.

Just as language or mathematics exist only as a framework that can describe physical things, the observable evidence shows that time exists the same (as the description not an entity); it gets confused with being an entity because such a framework is indispensable; reconstructing the order of data (recorded as many instants) that comprises a physical change of position.

 

[Write4U]

My investigation of the evidence has indicated that time is the measure or description of the event, they are observed as being coincident (time and the event). However the event is always composed of energy changing position in space, and as I quoted Einstein saying spacetime does exist on its own rather it describes the dynamics of a field (he was referring to the energy of a gravitational field), I have seen time is the same with no existence on its own but rather it is a description for any change of position of energy ( all empirical evidence supports that conclusion). Keep in mind a change of position of energy is the root of all change.

Thank you, that was my impression of the relationsip between the occurrence of a causal event and the emergence of time as a result (the spacetime record) of such change.

Just as language or mathematics exist only as a framework that can describe physical things, the observable evidence shows that time exists the same (as the description not an entity); it gets confused with being an entity because such a framework is indispensable; reconstructing the order of data (recorded as many instants) that comprises a physical change of position.

Precisely, once time (the duration of an event) has been created as a dimension of an event it cannot be undone (backward time travel to undo events or change is impossible). Time itself is not causal to anything, it is always a result, a by-product of dynamic change. IMO.
As an avid sailor, I am always amazed and delighted at the effects of angular momentum (tacking) has in the sailing "upwind", a very counterintuitive concept.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Grumpy. I am pressed for time again today, so please forgive any typos etc.

Go outside and look at the sun. You are seeing the sun as it was 8 minutes ago, not as it is now. THAT is a fact. If you stood outside looking at the sun at the moment it went nova, you would know nothing about that event for 8 whole minutes. The sun is 8 light minutes away from you in time. When you look at ANYTHING, you are seeing it in the dimension of time, specifically, the past. And an event 10 billion ly away is being seen as it was 10 billion years ago, so how you can say that time is not a visible distance is beyond understanding. We do not see all of space at all points in time, but we do see all times at various points in space. Time is a physical distance in spacetime. If you want to observe the events in the Universe from a billion years ago, focus your telescope at a billion lys distance and make some popcorn. You could theoretically observe historic events on Earth from thousands of years ago simply by going that many lys away and training your telescope Earthward(the problems are technological, it's hard to see detail from that far away and the distance is hard to cross instantly). So the claim time does not exist and is not easily seen is ridiculously easy to falsify just by the evidence of your own lyin' eyes.

No Grumpy, what you are 'seeing' is the LIGHT that left the sun at whatever energy-space location/process state it was in when that light left that sun. That's it. Anything else is 'overlain' by you on the observation, including 'time/timing' overlays, via your 'modeling' of the whole scenario.

You do realize that 'space-time' is an abstract MATHEMATICAL analytical construct, and not actually the 'structure' OR the 'mechanisms' in reality, don 't you? If you do realize this, then you already subconsciously recognize and understand (but for some reason still consciously deny) that it is you/relativity (via the abstract 'spacetime' construct) who is doing the 'mapping' in all this, and while doing so effectively confusing the map for the territory, not Maxila.

Any specific MEASUREMENT of time... You guys can't tell a map from the territory that map describes. Yes, any MEASUREMENT of time we do is an abstract(IE a map), but time itself doesn't give a crap about what you are or are not measuring, or if there are any events to measure(a condition it is nearly impossible to arrange as the Universe is one single thing, there are always events to measure detectable everywhere), it continues to pass regardless(the territory). You are QUANTIFYING time, not causing it.

You have it the wrong way round, Grumpy; energy-space distance is what it is, and lightspeed only the tool for convenient measurement/expression of vast astronomical distances within that energy-space extent. You can observe energy-space and the states/motions within it, but you can't observe the 'lightyears' as such, only COMPARE to your CALENDAR YEAR 'time' standard with the 'time' it takes for light to cross a specified energy-space extent....and call it a 'lightyear unit of distance' of that energy-space. Period.

Consider: IF lightspeed was HALF what it is, then the energy-space extent traversed by that slower light in a year would (according to your reckoning based on time being 'real' as energy-space distances) be TWICE the energy-space distance away (ie, TWO lightyears distance away)! How could that be? The energy-space distance was what it was! Only the propagation RATE of light was different!

OR...

If you used the standard of your rifle bullet to measure distance, you would be using the 'rifle bullet motion' year instead of 'light motion' year as your distance 'unit'. Yes?

Hence the convenient tool of using lightspeed rate of advance (motion) over energy-space distance is merely another motion-state changing device for abstraction of time and distance measurements/comparisons etc. See? While motion/state conditions/rates change, the distance is what it is in any region of energy-space, across which things (including QM vacuum energy/entities/quantities etc) may vary dynamically. Period.

If by Universal, you mean time for the Universe as a whole? It's time passage is visible every day, most of spacetime is incredibly empty and the Universe as a whole plods steadily toward the future at a near maximum rate(there is some matter to dilate the whole thing just a bit). If by universal you mean the same everywhere in that Universe, I have never claimed any universal time, I have been trying to illustrate that time is variable by movement, mass or energy. In fact any amount of those causes time to slow in the relevant frame. If any amount causes time to slow, then it is entirely logical that zero events means zero dilation. There is no universal maximum rate, the Universe has mass in it, but there is a LOCAL MAXIMUM RATE OF TIME'S PASSAGE, which is the rate in the absence of local dilation(IE empty space). I have asked several times at what point does time dilate to infinity(IE stop passing), what is the lower limit of mass where it suddenly reverses it's prior behavior(faster rate with less mass)to crash to a stop? You're claiming that time does not exist absent events and is totally a man made thing. I call bull poop.

No particular thing meant. Only that the duration/existence per se concept is a philosophical overlay WE bring to the whole picture/dynamics we observe and contemplate within our various conscious/subconscious frameworks for making serial sense of what is happening and what we extrapolate from earlier to later order of events and their reverse order. That philosophical concept always remains abstract and philosophical because it is not base on any particular motion/state processing conditions/origins.

That concept is not 'time/timing'; this is abstracted from a real physical PROCESS of motion/state changes in/across energy-space dynamics and extents. Period.

Whenever we DO time some process RATE, by comparison to some chosen REAL standard process RATE, we effectively are parsing some non-real sense of 'continuity of being' philosophical duration/existence concept. Hence time is real process in energy-space; whilst duration is merely our own vague idea of some 'background sense existence' which 'is the illusion of being there' irrespective of process or energy-space dynamics.

Our thoughts have nothing to do with observed reality, we are not evolved to understand reality outside of that we experience, so we make maps of new territory to reduce it to a size that fits between our ears. But when you lose sight of the fact that the map is not the territory. You are talking about the map we made, I am speaking of what the actual territory is. I am well aware that what we see does not at this particular moment in time any longer exist in the form we observe. I just spoke about a 32 billion solar mass BH just 2 billion years after the start of spacetime. It is no longer a 32 billion mass BH, it is much, much bigger(10 billion years of eating galaxies does that, you know), estimates scare the crap out of those who try to make them. It's sitting in an intersection of the weblike streams of matter that honeycomb the Universe, they should probably be described as rivers of matter flowing toward that BH, within 100 million lys of that hole there is estimated to be 250 billion galactic masses(our galaxy weights approximately 4 billion solar masses, our BH is about 4 million solar masses), most of it in very large galaxies with their own monstrously large BHs, most of that is probably in the galaxy of the biggest BH and a good bit is probably in the BH by now. Back to the old light cone, we can only know or deal with events in time as they arrive here.

That is exactly what Maxila has been trying to point out to you, Grumpy. Your thoughts and your abstract mapping, and your other 'overlays' onto the observed phenomena AS IT IS, is immaterial. Hence your idea that "time is part of the spacetime structure" is just your thoughts 'overlay' using the MATHEMATICAL construct. As effectively observed by Maxila, time is an 'overlay' onto the observed dynamics of process in/across energy-space extent/distance degrees of freedom.

Stop and think about it, Grumpy, and take your own advice; and so separate your overlays/thoughts from the essential observed aspects. Time is not part of any 'structure' except of the ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL construct called 'spacetime'. Energy-space is real physical part of universal dynamics; time is mere abstraction by US and overlain (as you have with the 'lightyear' measuring/modeling tool for astronomical distances).

...time exists as a structural property of the Universe itself, no matter what you have to do to make it comprehensible to a monkey brain.

That is exactly what you are doing, Grumpy. Effectively, you are doing what you have to do to make it comprehensible to YOU and your thinking 'overlay' on the observations actually involved. You are abstracting 'time' from the actual changes of motional/state PROCESS in dynamical energy-space, and calling it part of some 'structure' which does NOT in fact include 'time' as anything but an afterthought/overlay by YOU ON that observed dynamics which you then compare between states/conditions of change RATES. That is all time is. No more than that; a modeling tool abstraction from the actual phenomena observed. Take a break and rethink it all through, and this time try to avoid kneejerking and overlays of your own when considering what I have pointed out above. You will then see where Maxila is coming from; Reality as it is, not as it is 'modeled/abstracted' by us in 'spacetime' constructs and the like mathematical constructs. Cheers!