27 replies to this topic

[stephenszpak]

I'm not saying time is a dimension. For those that think it is,
it is based (according to Einstein) upon an objects movement
compared to another objects movement, right?

(I'm thinking about the 'atomic clocks on the airliner experiment', a
number of years ago.)

-Stephen

[luminous]

If there were no movement at all, would time even exist?

[Centurion]

if there was nothing remotely complex would exist. The atoms in objects resonate do they not even when observed as being stationary?

[stephenszpak]

I think this is what I remember:

http://en.wikipedia....ting_experiment

(I'm leading up to something, if there is anyone here with
a physics backround.)

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

http://www.time.com/...,839785,00.html

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

I came across this on another thread. Apparently there is strong
disagreement about time itself. (Hard for me to know who's got
a proper picture of what time is.) Link included if anyone has great
interest in the subject of time (otherwise, skip). As far as people
living their lives (NOT subatomic particles, starships, etc) it really
seems that time does not exist. This has absolutely nothing with where
I was trying to go when I started this thread. No matter. -Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distance, temperature, etc are all observably there. Time is not since it is always NOW. Even someone with your intellect is capable of remembering yesterday and thinking about tomorrow but they are only in your mind. Distance you can see for yourself, and traverse as you wish. Temperature you can experience and to some extent control because it is real. Time isn't.


http://forum.physorg...pic=11298&st=15

[stephenszpak]

originally posted by mtngoat (Jan 29 2007-09:17) :

Time is a dimension, it's different than the other 3 visible spatial dimensions however. The old example of meeting someone in a highrise, you obviously need to know what spot in space to meet the person but unless you additionally know when to meet him/her you will not meet. I don't think time is just relative to other objects, it is based on space-time, an absolute (that varies based on movement)

If there were no movement at all I don't think we would exist. If you can achieve the speed of light time would stop however. But to go that fast you have to have no mass, else require more energy than is possible to achieve (I don't know if you would have the capability to experience the lack of time though.) The fact that atoms are in motion when they appear stationary is just a matter of scale.

People living their lives do experience time, cause and effect is based on time. Time also keeps our lives, and everything, from happening at once. NOW is time, without time NOW would be less than time, less than the smallest measurement that we can get of time. Humans couldn't perceive a lack of time, we can't think fast enough, your engulfed in it. Us being able to discuss time means that time does exist, if it didn't we wouldn't be able to ask the question. Experiencing temperature and seeing distance also involve occurences in the mind. Granted it involves your senses but those aren't really based on anything objectively concrete and therefore all in your head as well.

Edited by Matthias, 02 February 2007 - 02:29 AM.

[stephenszpak]

originally posted by stephenszpak (Jan 29 2007-18:05) :


mtngoat wrote> Time is a dimension, it's different than the other 3 visible spatial dimensions however. The old example of meeting someone in a highrise, you obviously need to know what spot in space to meet the person but unless you additionally know when to meet him/her you will not meet.

Stephen wrote> If you plan on meeting this person on Tuesday, and it's Monday,
then it is just a plan. You are thinking about meeting them on
Tuesday. Even if there was a way to know with total certainty
that both of you would be alive and the highrise standing, and
transportation available, etc. this meeting is in the future.
You can't get access to Tuesday when it's Monday. Tuesday
doesn't exist for mere mortals like ourselves. It hasn't come into
existence yet.
We live in the
NOW. An infinitely thin sliver of time. Something that is
infinitely thin doesn't exist.

-Stephen

Edited by Matthias, 02 February 2007 - 02:29 AM.

[Matthias]

originally posted by xanadu (Jan 29 2007-20:45) :

Time is no more a dimension than temperature is or electrical conductivity. There may be other dimensions but time is not the fourth dimension. It's just something we use for our convenience.

NOW. An infinitely thin sliver of time. Something that isinfinitely thin doesn't exist

Now is the only thing that does exist. We will someday discover that time is an illusion. Over 99% of what we experience is an illusion created by our minds.

Edited by Matthias, 02 February 2007 - 02:28 AM.

[Matthias]

originally posted by mtngoat (Jan 30 2007-08:19) :

Let's just say your already there in the correct predetermined spatial coordinates. There's no thinking of the future or past, but the likelihood of meeting that person there is extremely small without the dimension of time (assuming that the person is not there). Temperature and/or electrical conductivity will not increase your chances of meeting that person to the extent that time can.

Compare it to being at two of the three spatial dimensions at a set time (conceding for this example to the fact that one can be certain of the future). Without knowing that third spatial dimension you won't meet just as in the first example. Without all four dimensions you can't meet another person.

I realize that one can't be completely certain of the future, and my first post wasn't trying to prove otherwise. I was arguing that time does exist, not that the future (or past) is certain.

I agree with xanadu on the holographic nature of our "reality", but why only 99% instead of 100%?. The only method we have of determining "real-ness" is our senses (our intellects aren't "real" are they?). If and when we discover time is an illusion I think we will discover spatial constructs are illusionary as well (space-time is a single construct).of an event.

Edited by Matthias, 02 February 2007 - 02:28 AM.

[Matthias]

originally posted by jaydfox (Jan 30 2007-11:43) :

Time is no more a dimension than temperature is or electrical conductivity.

Bad analogies.

Whether or not time is "really" another dimension as part of a spacetime continuum is beside the point: from a theoretical/mathematical point of view, it's very useful as an extra dimension added to the dimensions of space. It helps define a unique "location" for any event. Defining an event based on position alone is not sufficient, just as much as defining the location of an event based solely on two of three spatial dimensions (even if including time).

Temperature and electrial conductivity are irrelevant to defining the location of an event.

Edited by Matthias, 02 February 2007 - 02:28 AM.

[Matthias]

originally posted by xanadu (Jan 30 2007-20:32) :


mtngoat, according to your logic then a map is a dimension also. We can't get many places without a map of some sort. If it's a long distance from us then we can't get there without a car or other transport. We have to get into the car dimension to get to where we are going.

What we see as time is an illusion that the present is changing. Our memory of the past and our sense that the present is changing is what we call time. There are many other illusions that we know about and no doubt many we are unaware of. Take for example matter. Matter, such as the quality of being solid is an illusion generated by energy force fields. There is only energy and the now. All else is a dream we have been drawn into.

[Neurosail]

If I can jump in...

I thought that time was the movement of the super strings as they moved from one dimension to another dimension. They have 10 different dimensions to move in and out of and when they move "time" is created in a forward sense of movement, thus you can't travel back in time to any location because you would have to reset all the super strings to that moment or time frame.

But I study biology and not physics so I might be wrong. (I have no proof of what I just said only a guess.)

Space and time are the same tide, the same movement.

[stephenszpak]

If I can jump in...

I thought that time was the movement of the super strings as they moved from one dimension to another dimension. They have 10 different dimensions to move in and out of and when they move "time" is created in a forward sense of movement, thus you can't travel back in time to any location because you would have to reset all the super strings to that moment or time frame.

But I study biology and not physics so I might be wrong. (I have no proof of what I just said only a guess.)

Space and time are the same tide, the same movement.

Neurosail

Apparently string theory is having its problems:

http://www.timesonli...2221472,00.html

http://www.philly.co...=inquirer_books


(courtesy of biknut, who found these 2 books)

This is from a previous post of mine, see below:

****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************

String theory is just math. It will probably always remain in
the math realm.

Who's going to pay for this thing to be built? :::



To probe the realm superstrings are thought to inhabit,
physicists would have to builld a particle accelerator 1,000
light-years around. (The entire solar system is only one light-*day*
around.) And not even an accelerator that size could allow us to see
the extra dimensions where superstrings dance.

The End of Science page 62

-Stephen

[Neurosail]

Thanks! It was only a guess; I wonder how small they can go.

I think that space and time are the same, like electromagnetism where electricity and magnetism are at 90° angles to each other (The left hand rule or the right hand rule (I forgot which))
Point the middle finger at a 90° angle from the index finger and the thumb straight up. The index finger is current, the middle finger is magnetism, and the thumb is voltage (?)
It was a long time ago since I had that class.

[stephenszpak]

Thanks!  It was only a guess; I wonder how small they can go.

I think that space and time are the same, like electromagnetism where electricity and magnetism are at 90° angles to each other (The left hand rule or the right hand rule (I forgot which))
Point the middle finger at a 90° angle from the index finger and the thumb straight up. The index finger is current, the middle finger is magnetism, and the thumb is voltage (?)
It was a long time ago since I had that class.

Some rules are here if you really want to look. I'm not sure
if what you are referring to is below or not. I thought there was
one rule. I quickly found 4.

http://en.wikipedia..../Left-hand_rule

http://en.wikipedia...._hand_grip_rule

http://en.wikipedia....Right_hand_rule

http://en.wikipedia....right_hand_rule

As far as

""I wonder how small they can go.""

there probably isn't any smallest particle. Even IF superstrings exist
it is *extremely* unlikely humanity is going to build a collider X light years
around to prove it.
======================================================
More on strings, written in 1996 by John Horgan (The End of Science pg.71)

I have talked to many physicists about superstrings, and none has been able
to help me understand what, exactly, a superstring is . As far as I can tell,
it is neither matter nor energy; it is some kind of mathematical ur-stuff that
generates matter and energy and space and time but does not itself
correspond to anything in our world.

Good science writers will no doubt make readers think they understand such a
theory.
======================================================

-Stephen

[Neurosail]

Thanks, I was thinking of the left hand rule for motors or the right hand rule for generators.

If the thumb is "Thrust",(impedance), you could replace it with the "speed of light"
If the first finger is "Field",(magnetism), you could replace it with "time".
If the second finger is "Current",(electricity), you could replace it with "space".

If you think of the 10 dimensions as of electron shells than when an electron moves from one shell to another shell that creates magnetism. When an superstring moves from one dimension to another dimension that creates time. The speed of light or impedance is the rate of flow that a superstring can move. So the faster you travel, it slows down or creates more impedance so that the superstring can't jump from dimension to another dimension and that slows down time.

That is my guess at space-time.

[maestro949]

There's another dimension but it's not time.

LSU professor resolves Einstein's twin paradox

BATON ROUGE – Subhash Kak, Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at LSU, recently resolved the twin paradox, known as one of the most enduring puzzles of modern-day physics.

First suggested by Albert Einstein more than 100 years ago, the paradox deals with the effects of time in the context of travel at near the speed of light. Einstein originally used the example of two clocks – one motionless, one in transit. He stated that, due to the laws of physics, clocks being transported near the speed of light would move more slowly than clocks that remained stationary. In more recent times, the paradox has been described using the analogy of twins. If one twin is placed on a space shuttle and travels near the speed of light while the remaining twin remains earthbound, the unmoved twin would have aged dramatically compared to his interstellar sibling, according to the paradox.

“If the twin aboard the spaceship went to the nearest star, which is 4.45 light years away at 86 percent of the speed of light, when he returned, he would have aged 5 years. But the earthbound twin would have aged more than 10 years!” said Kak.

The fact that time slows down on moving objects has been documented and verified over the years through repeated experimentation. But, in the previous scenario, the paradox is that the earthbound twin is the one who would be considered to be in motion – in relation to the sibling – and therefore should be the one aging more slowly. Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory.

Kak’s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Science, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. “I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,” said Kak. Using probabilistic relationships, Kak’s solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it.

The implications of this resolution will be widespread, generally enhancing the scientific community’s comprehension of relativity. It may eventually even have some impact on quantum communications and computers, potentially making it possible to design more efficient and reliable communication systems for space applications.

[jaydfox]

I'm really not sure how this LSU professor's idea is new. I've never really understood why the twin's paradox was called a paradox, outside of the fact that when one first begins to examine the problem there appears to be a paradox.

[xanadu]

If only I had a twin I could send him away to another planet and then maybe I'd get younger. Kill two birds with one stone. Or maybe we'd have to send our whole solar system flying away to get the benefit? But even if it worked, we wouldn't notice the difference. We could live to be a million and it would seem like the usual number of years. Better just eat right, exercise, and take the good supplements.

[maestro949]

I think the LSU professor just added another perspective / observer to the equation. You could keep doing this indefinitely in theory. e.g. is the universe itself moving in a direction at some speed? is there a series of universes moving in different directions at different speeds. Is there a meta-verse that encapsulates these that is moving, etc, etc.

[stephenszpak]

On another thread (another website) someone wrote something like:

Time is both a constant and a variable.

I'm not saying I agree with that, but it seems to cover everything (hee, hee).

What I was getting at (way back when) is that IF one accepts that time
is another dimension AND an object/person/etc. is moving relative to you,
then they are out of time respect to you. They are in a dimension just slightly
off from yours. (ie. the Special Relativity stuff.)

For example, you are sitting on a park bench and your twin jogs
past and says hi blah blah. Because he is moving and you're not, then
you both are not in the same time. That is, not *exactly*. As humans we could never
perceive it of course. We would (according to the books) apparently be constantly
moving askew in time relative to people we know. Sometimes forward askew, and
sometimes backward in our lives.

-Stephen

===========================================================

Time dilation is defined as the change in pace of time in each given frame of reference such that time speeding up or slowing down may vary depending the velocity in comparison to another frame of references velocity, the idea that time is absolute only came up when this was observed so, however now we know that this variance in time is only apparent to us at high speeds way beyond everyday velocitys

In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity time dilation is manifested in two circumstances:

In special relativity, clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation (the putatively stationary observer) are found to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformations...


In special relativity, the time dilation effect is reciprocal: as observed from the point of view of any two clocks which are in motion with respect to each other, it will be the other party's clocks that is time dilated. (This presumes that the relative motion of both parties is uniform; that is, they do not accelerate with respect to one another during the course of the observations.)





http://en.wikipedia....i/Time_dilation

[xanadu]

Good points, Stephen. Imagine a rocket traveling toward the earth at near light speed (NLS) and another one headed from the opposite direction towards earth at NLS. Lets say they cross very close to earth. An observer on earth sees both of them time slowed in the same degree. An observer on either rocket sees the earth slowed and the other rocket slowed even more. The other rocket observer agrees the earth is slowed timewise but sees the other rocket as being even more slowed and him as normal. Which one is really slowed and by about how much. It's not that hard a question but it helps illustrate relativity.

[xanadu]

No one wants to tackle that? How about this one:

Many people have heard the thought experiment that you send a rocket at NLS with one member of a twin aboard, the other twin stays on earth. Supposedly, when the rocket returns after years at NLS, the twin on board is younger than the twin on earth because of time dilation. If motion is relative, why would the twin on the ship experience the dilation and not the one on earth? Maybe, it would be the opposite way? If not, give your reason why not.

That one may be too hard.

[fearfrost]

This one is not beyond understanding, but it is certainly hard to comprehend. Xanadu, the solution to this apparent paradox is what is called relativity of simultaneity. I have studied physics for many years now and I still have significant trouble wrapping my mind around it. But the math works, and supposed tests have proved relativity of simultaneity to be true. The following post is a clip from wikipedia that does a fairly nice job at introducing the material.

[fearfrost]

Time dilation is symmetric between two inertial observers

One assumes, naturally enough, that if time-passage has slowed for a moving object, the moving object would find the external world to be correspondingly "sped up." But counterintuitively, Einsteinian relativity predicts the opposite, a situation difficult to visualize. This is based on an essential principle of the overall theory: if one object is moving with respect to another (at an unchanging velocity), the other is equally moving with respect to it.

We're accustomed to this notion of relativity with respect to distance: the distance from Los Angeles to New York is, and must be, the same as the distance from New York to Los Angeles. But when we consider speeds, we think of an object as "really" moving, overlooking that its motion is always relative to something else — to oneself, the ground, the stars, etc. A camera "panning" along with a moving object against a blank background would reveal no motion.

The Einsteinian takes seriously the thesis that all motion is indeed relative to some actual (if specified only by implication) "benchmark" that is regarded as stationary, setting aside any issue as to whether what is treated as stationary "really is". You regard it as stationary, and are justified in so treating it, if you yourself are maintaining a fixed distance from it. And this is true even if, for someone else, both you and the benchmark are moving along side-by-side.

But if motion is thus understood as purely relative, it can be divided-up between "mover" and "benchmark" in any way one pleases, even allowing them to completely switch roles. All that matters is the rate at which they are approaching, or departing from, one another, a grand total which re-distributing the speed-contribution of each one doesn't change. And if that is true, the consequences of relative motion predicted by the theory must also "add up" to an unchanging total effect. If A finds that B has undergone a slowdown-in-time during the period of relative motion, it must work out that B will also find that A has a relatively slower "clock." It seems an inconceivable situation: yet the math works out, and actual tests confirm it.

With respect to constant relative motion between two "clocks", a measurement of relative time must choose one clock as being "stationary" in spacetime, and that clock is the basis of a temporal coordinate system where time throughout is treated as synchronized with the stationary clock. The other "moving" clock is in motion with respect to this treated-as-stationary coordinated system, and its relative motion is the velocity value used in the applicable equations.

In the Special Theory of Relativity, the moving clock is found to be ticking slow with respect to the temporal coordinate system of the stationary clock. And as indicated, this effect is symmetrical: In a coordinate system synchronized, by contrast, with the "moving" clock, it is the "stationary" clocks that is found (by all methods of measurement) to be running slow. (Neglecting this principle of symmetry leads to the so-called twin paradox being regarded as paradoxical.)

Note that in all such attempts to establish "synchronization" within the reference system, the question of whether something happening at one location is in fact happening simultaneously with something happening elsewhere, is of key importance. Calculations are ultimately based on determining what is simultaneous with what.

It is a natural and legitimate question to ask how, in detail, Special Relativity can be self-consistent if clock A is time-dilated with respect to clock B and clock B is also time-dilated with respect to clock A. It is by challenging the assumptions we build into the common notion of simultaneity that logical consistency can be restored. Within the framework of the theory and its terminology, the short answer is that there is a relativity of simultaneity that affects how the specified "benchmark" moments of "simultaneous" events are aligned with respect to each other by observers who are in motion with respect to one other. Because the pairs of putatively simultaneous moments are differently identified by the different observers (as illustrated in the twin paradox article), each can treat the other clock as being the slow one without Relativity being self-contradictory. For those seeking a more explicit account, this can be explained in many ways, some of which follow.

Temporal coordinate systems and clock synchronization

In Relativity, temporal coordinate systems are set up using a procedure for synchronizing clocks, discussed by Poincaré (1900) in relation to Lorentz's local time (see relativity of simultaneity). It is now usually called the Einstein synchronization procedure, since it appeared in his 1905 paper.

An observer with a clock sends a light signal out at time t1 according to his clock. At a distant event, that light signal is reflected back to, and arrives back to the observer at time t2 according to his clock. Since the light travels the same path at the same rate going both out and back for the observer in this scenario, the coordinate time of the event of the photon being reflected for the observer tE is tE = (t1 + t2) / 2. In this way, a single observer's clock can be used to define temporal coordinates which are good anywhere in the universe.

Symmetric time dilation occurs with respect to temporal coordinate systems set up in this manner. It is an effect where another clock is being viewed as running slow by an observer. Observers in rest in their coordinate system do not consider their own clock time to be time-dilated, but may find that it is understood to be time-dilated in another coordinate system.

[fearfrost]

Also a great introduction:
http://en.wikipedia....of_simultaneity

Man this stuff boggles the mind... spend too much time thinking about these things and your bound to end up in the loony bin. But I do love relativity because it is such a blatant example that our human minds cannot logically/deductively understand the world in which we live. The other best two examples of this are trying to understand God (and Jesus) and the concept of eternity (esp. eternal life)... both of which I am a firm believer in despite the difficulty in understanding them.

[xanadu]

Very good, fearfrost. I didn't look up the info since I prefer to try to solve things on my own first. I sometimes come up with better angles doing that. One thing about the answer from wikipedia is that it's very wordy. I have noticed that often but not always the wordy answer has a generous dose of bs in it. Sometimes it's clueless but covers it up with lots of talk. I sense a little bs in the wiki article though since I don't have the absolute answer myself, I can't prove it's wrong. I just think it's incomplete.

I've heard that experiments have been done in which atomic clocks were synchronized and one was put aboard a plane for a fast trip around the world and the other kept stationary. When the traveled clock was brought back, it was found to be slightly slower than the "stationary" one. This supposedly proved time dilation. Why then was there a difference even if only microseconds? All that talk about different temporal coordinate systems comes down to the fact that when the clocks were brought together, they were at the same relative speed and therefore in the same frame of reference. Or will someone tell me that once something goes fast it is permanently in another dimension? Then every particle on earth might have it's own system and it's own dimensions.

Theory says that the traveled clock should experience dilation equally as should the stationary one. Whether you see one as being slowed or the other should depend on your frame of reference, if I understand your explanation correctly. However, when they are brought together, both clocks plus the observers are in the same frame of reference and should see the same thing. Either the experiment I heard about was done wrong or there is another explanation. Perhaps acceleration makes a difference? The stationary clock was not accelerated, the other one was. But, I know of no place for acceleration in the theory of relativity. It's velocity that is supposed to produce the dilation, not acceleration. Another possiblity is that the expectations of the experimenters altered the results. This gets into a whole other subject which many may not wish to explore and is off topic but esp and mind controlling matter has been demonstrated. Look at the research at Duke university and other places going back to the 1930's.

I can see the frame of reference thing when they are both moving rapidly in respect to each other. An object traveling at near light speed (NLS) in respect to another object you would expect the observer on one to see other one slowed down. But, if the second object takes a loop and comes back for another pass after a length of time, would he not see the second object's clock running far behind his? And the second object's observer sees the clock on the first object as running behind. Clocks A and B both read the same before acceleration. Lets neglect the time needed to accelerate and say that when one passes the other the first time, the clocks are in synchrony. On the second pass, a year later, the clock on object B says a year has passed and as he passes object A, he sees that clock A shows only 6 months have passed. The observer on object A sees his clock shows a year has passed and when object B goes by, he sees it's clock shows 6 months. So now we have illusions of some sort going on. And what happens when the out of synch clocks are brought to rest and brought together? Which clock is really behind? I'd say this shows a serious flaw with relativity as we understand it. I don't expect anyone to be able to come up with the answer to that. Copying reams of blah blah blah is not going to answer it. But don't get angry at me like people did when I explained the evolution of the universe and explained the excess red shift with my theory of the weak gravitational force.