The Relativity of Time

Hopefully, ^^the information presented above^^ will be of use to some Members of this Forum! If it is completely read and if it is completely understood.


Well first off, you do seem to have misunderstood some of it....
for example...."
" This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object."
from one of your links....

And it's also interesting you mention Sten Odenwald...
It was Sten who also said the following
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
That tells me that space, time, space/time, gravity, matter, energy all exist and all depend on one another, with of course space and time being the fundamental foundation. Do away with one, and pooof!! You do away with all

And I have also given many other links elsewhere.....

Again, the best I can say for those that are unable to see the reality in the concepts, is that at best, the subject is debatable.
 
Since we are all trotting out links etc.......

http://ws5.com/spacetime/Fundamental Physics.pdf

where it says.....
The laws of relativity and quantum mechanics are the pillars of our current understanding of nature "

"One of the startling general predictions of quantum field theory is the existence of anti particles such as the positron, which has the same properties as the electron but the opposite electric charge. This prediction has another striking consequence, namely that even the vacuum has structure and dynamics"

"The standard model is one of the triumphs of physics in the twentieth century"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/



""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.timephysics.com/
Time is a real phenomenon a continuous change through which we live. Time becomes evident through motion; sunrise sunsets,
night and day, the changing seasons, the movement of the celestial bodies all is indicative of continuous change. The aging process
is a reminder that molecular motion and interactions are also at work and are a part of time. Other important aspect of time is
presence of motion of particles like photon and the motion at the atomic level.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

"



""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

Controversially, Physicist Argues Time Is Real:


Over time, though, Smolin became convinced not only that time was real, but that this notion could be the key to understanding the laws of nature.

"If laws are outside of time, then they're inexplicable," he said. "If law just simply is, there's no explanation. If we want to understand law … then law must evolve, law must change, law must be subject to time. Law then emerges from time and is subject to time rather than the reverse."

Smolin admitted there are objections to this idea, especially what he calls "the meta-law dilemma:" If physical laws are subject to time, and evolve over time, then there must be some larger law that guides their evolution. But wouldn't this law, then, have to be beyond time, to determine how the other laws change with time? Other physicists have cited this objection in reaction to Smolin's work.

"The problem I see with the argument for laws that evolve in time is one that you yourself identify in the book: what you call the 'meta-laws dilemma,'" Columbia University physicist Peter Woit wrote on his blog Not Even Wrong. "You speculate a bit in the book on ways to resolve this, but I don't see a convincing answer to the criticism that whatever explanation you come up with for what determines how laws evolve, I’m free to characterize that as just another law."

Smolin admitted this is currently a sticking point, but maintained that there are possible solutions.

"I believe you can resolve the meta-law dilemma," Smolin said at the Rubin event. "I think the direction of 21st-century cosmology will depend on the right way to resolve the meta-law dilemma."

Smolin and Meck discussed the consequences of his idea, including what it means for our understanding of human consciousness and free will. One implication of the idea that time is an illusion is the notion that the future is just as decided as the past.

"If I think the future's already written, then the things that are most valuable about being human are illusions along with time," Smolin said. "We still aspire to make choices in life. That is a precious part of our humanity. If the real metaphysical picture is that there are just atoms moving in the void, then nothing is ever new and nothing's ever surprising — it's just the rearrangement of atoms. There's a loss of responsibility as well as a loss of human dignity."
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 
You didn't bold the best part:



Roger Penrose came up with a radically new way to develop a unified theory of physics. Instead of seeking to explain how particles move and interact within space and time, he proposed that space and time themselves are secondary constructs that emerge out of a deeper level of reality. ..." Andrew Hodges of Oxford says that "This idea of points of spacetime as being primary objects is artificial."

Nightshift, I thought about it. The fact that you pointed it out, confirms that it has been completely read, and completely understood by one other Member of this Forum!

Although, to be quite honest, I was under the impression that you fully understood all of what I Posted prior to Starting this Thread!
 
I think it's about time we stopped refering to space as 'space-time'. I also think we should ban the phrase time dilation. Because if time doesn't exist those references are invalid and confusing.

Ban space/time...and ban time dilation......
So confining the BB and GR to the dust bin......Don't be too concerned about observational evidence and experimental results err?
So, what are your thoughts on the BB, SR and GR? :)

This should be interesting.



:)
 
You didn't bold the best part:



Roger Penrose came up with a radically new way to develop a unified theory of physics. Instead of seeking to explain how particles move and interact within space and time, he proposed that space and time themselves are secondary constructs that emerge out of a deeper level of reality. ..." Andrew Hodges of Oxford says that "This idea of points of spacetime as being primary objects is artificial."


Sounds like a thought experiment to me....and of course we have no idea what this secondary construct is do we???
If space and time evolved from the BB at t=10-43 seconds, this secondary construct then talks about the Singularity/Planck volume, of which we no sweet f$#@ all about. :)
 
Time must exist or the sun wouldn't rise right on time every morning.

I go to bed every night right on time.
 
Time must exist or the sun wouldn't rise right on time every morning.

I go to bed every night right on time.

The sun appears to rise on the horizon because the position of earth is constantly changing relative to the sun. It has nothing to do with ''time.'' Time is not responsible for change, the definition of time is change.
 
Time must exist or the sun wouldn't rise right on time every morning.

I go to bed every night right on time.

Exactly kx100...If we had no time, we wouldn't even have a Universe...same goes for space.

All this meta-physical philosophical claptrap, is just that. :)
 
Exactly kx100...If we had no time, we wouldn't even have a Universe...same goes for space.

All this meta-physical philosophical claptrap, is just that. :)

Time is the thing which is philosophical. It describes change, change is real, time is not. Change happens in space, it isn't itself a dimension of space.
 
Since we are all trotting out links etc.......

http://ws5.com/spacetime/Fundamental Physics.pdf

where it says.....
The laws of relativity and quantum mechanics are the pillars of our current understanding of nature "

paddoboy, not sure of the "we" you mention, but personally , I do not selectively "edit" what I quote to obfuscate the meaning!

To wit : unedited version of what you seem to have attempted to quote in your Post #262 ( Bold and Color by dmoe!):
Nima Arkani-Hamed said:
The laws of relativity and quantum mechanics are the pillars of our current understanding of nature. However, describing physics in a way that is compatible with both of these principles turns out to be extremely challenging; indeed, it is possible only with an extremely constrained theoretical structure, known as quantum field theory.
-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://ws5.com/spacetime/Fundamental Physics.pdf

paddoboy, if you fully read and fully understand what I Posted in my Post #259 - then you should fully understand the definition of that tiny little 6-letter word "theory"!

So...


p. s., You seem to not "understand" how to use the "quote feature"!
Yet it is exponentially simpler and easier than "understanding" the subjects discussed in Threads that you seem compelled to represent yourself as the "major authority" in!
 



I'm not getting into another slanging match with you, but you should be aware of facts as I have presented them, and the reputable authoritive opinions of those I have presented.
The links I gave are as is......
All people need to do is check......
Now again, what you link to is in most cases meta-physical philosophical claptrap...and I havn't even mentioned what GP-B was measuring.

Again at worst for the no reality side, their theoretical musings are plain wrong...at best, they maybe debatable.
 
Time is the thing which is philosophical. It describes change, change is real, time is not. Change happens in space, it isn't itself a dimension of space.

Rubbish.....
To say time is not real is to piss into the wind.
If we did not have it, we wouldn't be here......
 
paddoboy, not sure of the "we" you mention, but personally , I do not selectively "edit" what I quote to obfuscate the meaning!
I havn't changed any meaning....and you are unable to show me where I have. But for you to raise Sten Odenwald and use him to push your position, is dishonest to say the least.
And really about you never selectively editing, give me a break!!!
That is just plain ordinary crap and not true.
next you'll be telling us you don't shit
 
Rubbish.....
To say time is not real is to piss into the wind.
If we did not have it, we wouldn't be here......

Why can't you understand, if change did not happen, how could you know if time passed? Time is a superfluous concept to describe changes in the universe.
 
I think it's about time we stopped refering to space as 'space-time'. I also think we should ban the phrase time dilation. Because if time doesn't exist those references are invalid and confusing.

Like I said a crank fest.
 
Holography

Meanwhile, Van Raamsdonk has proposed a very different idea about the emergence of space-time, based on the holographic principle. Inspired by the hologram-like way that black holes store all their entropy at the surface, this principle was first given an explicit mathematical form by Juan Maldacena, a string theorist at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, who published11 his influential model of a holographic universe in 1998. In that model, the three-dimensional interior of the universe contains strings and black holes governed only by gravity, whereas its two-dimensional boundary contains elementary particles and fields that obey ordinary quantum laws without gravity.

Hypothetical residents of the three-dimensional space would never see this boundary, because it would be infinitely far away. But that does not affect the mathematics: anything happening in the three-dimensional universe can be described equally well by equations in the two-dimensional boundary, and vice versa.

In 2010, Van Raamsdonk studied what that means when quantum particles on the boundary are 'entangled' — meaning that measurements made on one inevitably affect the other12. He discovered that if every particle entanglement between two separate regions of the boundary is steadily reduced to zero, so that the quantum links between the two disappear, the three-dimensional space responds by gradually dividing itself like a splitting cell, until the last, thin connection between the two halves snaps. Repeating that process will subdivide the three-dimensional space again and again, while the two-dimensional boundary stays connected. So, in effect, Van Raamsdonk concluded, the three-dimensional universe is being held together by quantum entanglement on the boundary — which means that in some sense, quantum entanglement and space-time are the same thing.
http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-the-origins-of-space-and-time-1.13613

Crank crankity, crank crank!
 
I'm not getting into another slanging match with you, but...

...7-minutes later, paddoboy, you attempt to instigate a "slanging match"...

paddoboy, not sure of the "we" you mention, but personally , I do not selectively "edit" what I quote to obfuscate the meaning!
I havn't changed any meaning....
paddoboy, you used the word "changed" - I used the word "obfuscate" :
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscate said:
Full Definition of OBFUSCATE
transitive verb
1 a : darken
1 b : to make obscure <obfuscate the issue>
2 : confuse <obfuscate the reader>
: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
Examples of OBFUSCATE
Politicians keep obfuscating the issues.
Their explanations only serve to obfuscate and confuse.
-the ^^above quoted^^ from ; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscate


and you are unable to show me where I have. But for you to raise Sten Odenwald and use him to push your position, is dishonest to say the least.
My quoting of Dr. Sten Odenwald was not to "push" any position other than the position that he, himself put forth in that quote!

And really about you never selectively editing, give me a break!!!
That is just plain ordinary crap and not true.
next you'll be telling us you don't shit

paddoboy, there is not the tiniest hint of opacity in the puerile "games" that you engage in : Ad Hominems ; Baiting ; Trolling ; Instigating "Slanging Matches" ; Unsupported Assertions, Allegations and Accusations ; Impugning my Honesty and Character...etc.!

paddoboy, you must realize that every single word that you Post on this Forum will remain, indefinitely, for anyone and everyone to read!
 
Yup.

Just like I said earlier this week, the separation of objects may not be fundamental. If distance between objects was not fundamental, could give an answer to entanglement theory. Thanks for your thread it was helpful to the cause.

This is highly relevant to what had been discussed, this is the statistical nature of gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_as_an_entropic_force

Treated purely as an emergent property.
 
My quoting of Dr. Sten Odenwald was not to "push" any position other than the position that he, himself put forth in that quote!



I know what position Sten Odenwald holds.....and that position is the reality of space, time, space/time, gravity and matter energy
Here are a couple of his questions and answers that support that concept.....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2400.html
Did the Big Bang happen in a medium, or in a vacuum?

We do not know.

The best speculation these days is that the 'medium' was the physical vacuum. We know that an empty vacuum is far from being empty because in quantum mechanics, particles are free to appear and disappear within it, and this activity actually gives the vacuum 'state' a latent energy. So, the vacuum of space is far from being an inert and passive object and acts like a peculiar medium.

There is much we do not know about the vacuum 'state', and the natures of all the fields that it might contain. Extensions of Big Bang cosmology developed by some physicists seem to attribute many very unusual properties and phenomena to this state. In any true fundamental way, no one really understands enough about space-time and the quantum dynamics of the vacuum state to be able to predict what the implications are for cosmogenesis. How one goes about testing such predictions is equally unknown.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


and.....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.astronomycafe.net/gravity/gravity.html
Perhaps the most unusual thing about gravity we know about is that, unlike the other forces of nature, gravity is intimately related to space and time. In fact, space and time are viewed by physicists, and the mathematics of relativity theory, as qualities of the gravitational field of the cosmos that have no independent existence. Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

and of course this one, which I won't reproduce.....


https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html


I have already informed you that sometimes astronomers/cosmologists are lazy and take short cuts and their replies do lack intricate detail....plus of course journalistic license.
Your's purposely reflect that.

But what I may do to help you out with this continuing closet anti mainstream stance you take, [or is that an anti paddoboy stance :)]
is E-Mail Sten, and ask for some detail and latest thoughts.
I have E-Mailed him before, along with Mitch Begalman and have received helpful replies.

See what a helpful fellow I am to those les fortunate? :)




paddoboy, there is not the tiniest hint of opacity in the puerile "games" that you engage in : Ad Hominems ; Baiting ; Trolling ; Instigating "Slanging Matches" ; Unsupported Assertions, Allegations and Accusations ; Impugning my Honesty and Character...etc.!

paddoboy, you must realize that every single word that you Post on this Forum will remain, indefinitely, for anyone and everyone to read!


As will yours.....and I willingly stand by the judgement of our peers here and the mods, the same as you also will.
 
Back
Top