3 of 7
3
Why is Time so controversial?
Posted: 10 November 2011 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Yeah, I guess I should have put “move consciousness” within quotation marks. I am making the same old mistake: confusing what time is with what it feels like. Oh, God,... confused

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26
George - 10 November 2011 07:40 AM

The way I imagine it works is like this: The moment Forrest Gump opens his box of chocolate while sitting on the bench in the park can be found either at 58 minutes into the movie (time), or, if we measure the length of the actual strip of the film, it happens in frame number 14,557 (space). Same thing.

I do agree with Doug that a problem arises when we realize that we experience time as different from space. But I guess we won’t know why that is until we understand consciousness.

The problem is that you can arrive at the bench by counting frames. But there is no guarantee that you will arrive at the proper frame after counting 58 minutes. It depends on your speed. And if you play the movie at half speed you will still have 14,557 frames but now it takes 116 minutes.
They are very much related but only in a relative way.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

According to Einstein, it is physical motion through space that affects time. That’s why there is really no space and no time; just spacetime because they are. Motion adds to the space component and subtracts from the time component. An atomic clock traveling in a jet runs more slowly than one sitting on the ground.

That confuses me. Why? Because the Earth is traveling over 66,000 MPH around the sun and also spinning at about 900 MPH (at a 30 degree latitude). So it seems that a jet traveling in a direction counter to the earth’s, then it is going slower and the clock should speed up. But the experiments always show the clocks in jets slowing down.

Additionally, the jet is traveling fast but it is farther from earth so it is under less influence of our gravity which means the jet clock should speed up a bit.

[ Edited: 10 November 2011 01:38 PM by traveler ]
 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 02:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26
traveler - 10 November 2011 01:36 PM

According to Einstein, it is physical motion through space that affects time. That’s why there is really no space and no time; just spacetime because they are. Motion adds to the space component and subtracts from the time component. An atomic clock traveling in a jet runs more slowly than one sitting on the ground.

That confuses me. Why? Because the Earth is traveling over 66,000 MPH around the sun and also spinning at about 900 MPH (at a 30 degree latitude). So it seems that a jet traveling in a direction counter to the earth’s, then it is going slower and the clock should speed up. But the experiments always show the clocks in jets slowing down.

Additionally, the jet is traveling fast but it is farther from earth so it is under less influence of our gravity which means the jet clock should speed up a bit.

There you have it. Everyone is treating time as a dimension in which one can move forward or backward. But that is not correct. Time does not exist at all as an independent quality (other than as a memory of a past event or a vague estimation of a future event). Real Time comes “into existence” or “emerges” as a result and in relation to moving in space.

This is why you cannot travel back in time. That time is no longer being created, it is past and exists only as a memory of created time relative to that specific action. Trying to go back into the past only results in more time being created moving us ever more forward.

[ Edited: 10 November 2011 02:19 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 02:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
traveler - 10 November 2011 01:36 PM

According to Einstein, it is physical motion through space that affects time. That’s why there is really no space and no time; just spacetime because they are. Motion adds to the space component and subtracts from the time component. An atomic clock traveling in a jet runs more slowly than one sitting on the ground.

That confuses me. Why? Because the Earth is traveling over 66,000 MPH around the sun and also spinning at about 900 MPH (at a 30 degree latitude). So it seems that a jet traveling in a direction counter to the earth’s, then it is going slower and the clock should speed up. But the experiments always show the clocks in jets slowing down.

Additionally, the jet is traveling fast but it is farther from earth so it is under less influence of our gravity which means the jet clock should speed up a bit.

Well, I wouldn’t put it this way: “it is physical motion through space that affects time”. That’s liable to confusion. What does the affecting is acceleration, and what it affects is relative time. (And gravity is just one form of acceleration). But it doesn’t affect ‘time’ per se; time exists just as space does. Indeed, what exists is only spacetime. What happens when object A accelerates away from object B is that A shrinks in the direction of motion with respect to B, and A’s clock ticks slower with respect to B’s.

But these differences aren’t seen at A (A doesn’t suddenly see itself moving slower, or getting thinner in the forward direction). What A sees is B speeding up and getting stretched out. It’s all relative: both time and space; spacetime.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
dougsmith - 10 November 2011 02:22 PM

Well, I wouldn’t put it this way: “it is physical motion through space that affects time”. That’s liable to confusion. What does the affecting is acceleration, and what it affects is relative time. (And gravity is just one form of acceleration). But it doesn’t affect ‘time’ per se; time exists just as space does. Indeed, what exists is only spacetime. What happens when object A accelerates away from object B is that A shrinks in the direction of motion with respect to B, and A’s clock ticks slower with respect to B’s.

But these differences aren’t seen at A (A doesn’t suddenly see itself moving slower, or getting thinner in the forward direction). What A sees is B speeding up and getting stretched out. It’s all relative: both time and space; spacetime.

That is much clearer. Thanks Doug!

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26

I still believe that time is (measurable) relative only to motion, whether it is acceleration or decelaration.  Acceleration shortens time in relation to space and deceleration lengthens time in relation to space. Or conversely acceleration lengthens space relative to time and decelaration shortens space relative to time.
IMO, space has physical existence and we move through space. Time has a no physical existence and we do not move through time, we “create” time as we move, relative to space.

A simple example is traveling one mile (a fixed real distance) at different speeds. The time it “takes” is solely dependent on the speed (acceleration or deceleration) we travel to cover that one mile.

[ Edited: 10 November 2011 03:30 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 03:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

“Time has a no physical existence and we do not move through time, we “create” time as we move, relative to space.” 
I don’t understand that.  It would seem to mean that if we did not move, time would stop?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
Write4U - 10 November 2011 03:09 PM

I still believe that time is (measurable) relative only to motion, whether it is acceleration or deceleration.

Well, motion is one thing and acceleration is another. In order to begin moving you have to accelerate, but in Einsteinian physics non-accelerative motion is only relative motion. (Motion relative to something else). IOW if it’s only you in space with no other reference points, there’s no sense to be made of you moving at all.

Acceleration, OTOH, is a force that you can feel, even if you’re the only thing in the universe.

Re. ‘measurability’, one can’t measure time without using something that changes in time, just the same as one can’t measure space without something that has (regularly spaced) alterations.

Write4U - 10 November 2011 03:09 PM

Acceleration shortens time in relation to space and deceleration lengthens time in relation to space. Or conversely acceleration lengthens space relative to time and decelaration shortens space relative to time.
IMO, space has physical existence and we move through space. Time has a no physical existence and we do not move through time, we “create” time as we move, relative to space.

A simple example is traveling one mile (a fixed real distance) at different speeds. The time it “takes” is solely dependent on the speed (acceleration or deceleration) we travel to cover that one mile.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. Your point about speed shortening the time it takes you to get somewhere is obviously true, but has nothing to do with Einsteinian notions of relativity or spacetime. It’s something that would have been obvious to pre-Newtonians. Einsteinian relativity is significantly weirder. It says that if one twin stays on Earth and the other accelerate at a high percentage of the speed of light towards Alpha Centauri, then accelerates back towards Earth, the twin that traveled at high acceleration will return younger than the twin who stayed home. This is because the twin who accelerates has a clock that ticked relatively slower. Similar issues exist about length in direction of acceleration: the twin that accelerated would have been relatively shorter in the direction of acceleration than the twin that remained behind. This relative difference would have disappeared when the twin ceased relative acceleration, however the difference in apparent age would remain.

Re. whether time has ‘physical existence’, it clearly isn’t a physical thing in the sense that an iron ball is a physical thing. But all physical things exist within the spacetime manifold, and spacetime is as integral a part of physics (the study of the physical) as is iron. Could there exist completely unoccupied spacetime? Not according to quantum mechanics, though I’m not sure about Einsteinian physics.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 06:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26
TimB - 10 November 2011 03:43 PM

“Time has a no physical existence and we do not move through time, we “create” time as we move, relative to space.”

 
I don’t understand that.  It would seem to mean that if we did not move, time would stop?

Yes, if ALL movement in the universe stopped, there would be no time. But that condition existed only before the Big Bang and that’s why there was no time before the BB. Time started with the creation of spacetime i.e. movement in space.

[ Edited: 10 November 2011 08:40 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 06:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26

dougsmith

Well, motion is one thing and acceleration is another. In order to begin moving you have to accelerate, but in Einsteinian physics non-accelerative motion is only relative motion. (Motion relative to something else). IOW if it’s only you in space with no other reference points, there’s no sense to be made of you moving at all.

Does movement have to be relative to another object in space or can we move from one space coordinate to another without another object being present? Seems to me that quantum itself is movement to another coordinate in space and creates (requires) time in the process.
IMO, this is at the heart of the “uncertainty effect” which is relative only to itself and not to another object.

[ Edited: 10 November 2011 06:22 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
Write4U - 10 November 2011 06:18 PM

Does movement have to be relative to another object in space or can we move from one space coordinate to another without another object being present?

No, this notion of absolute space is (pre-?) Newtonian and was disproved experimentally by Michelson and Morley in 1887. Einstein’s theories are based on a rejection of absolute space and time.

Spacetime is required for physical events, of course, but there is no absolute coordinate system independent from those events. (E.g., one that might tell us when “the present” is).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

I wonder how this fits in with the theory of quantized spacetime. Is quantized spacetime absolute or is it also somehow relative?

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14
domokato - 10 November 2011 07:28 PM

I wonder how this fits in with the theory of quantized spacetime. Is quantized spacetime absolute or is it also somehow relative?

Good question. I don’t think so; as I understand it, the notion of ‘quantized spacetime’ basically means that there is a size below which it doesn’t make sense to speak. (The Planck length). Existing things have to be larger than a certain size; anything below that size has no real properties. But that doesn’t require that there be anything like a fixed or absolute coordinate grid of units of that size.

But I am sure someone more versed in the nuances of quantum physics will know much more about this than I ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2011 08:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6041
Joined  2009-02-26
dougsmith - 10 November 2011 07:12 PM
Write4U - 10 November 2011 06:18 PM

Does movement have to be relative to another object in space or can we move from one space coordinate to another without another object being present?

No, this notion of absolute space is (pre-?) Newtonian and was disproved experimentally by Michelson and Morley in 1887. Einstein’s theories are based on a rejection of absolute space and time.

Spacetime is required for physical events, of course, but there is no absolute coordinate system independent from those events. (E.g., one that might tell us when “the present” is).

Not even where it is?  Even then, does it matter?  My point is no matter where you start from, any movement from any starting point creates time.
I am asserting that space has 3 coordinates and time is created when an object moves between at least two of these coordinates.

edited to remove the words “relative” and “absolute” in connection with the point I am making. They are not pertinent to the question at hand.

[ Edited: 10 November 2011 10:46 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3