The Relativity of Time

[OnlyMe]

You do realize this is theoretical, no one is saying anyone was around. What i am saying is that time doesn't make sense at this period of the universe.

My point was and is, that you cannot know that. You can only imagine that to be the case based on how you interpret what we see (observe) of the universe today, from the context of how we think the universe works...

But our two best theories of how things work, GR and QM don't agree on enough to make sense of the whole.

I continue to nit pic on how theory is presented in absolute terms.

 

[Nightshift]

My point was and is, that you cannot know that. You can only imagine that to be the case based on how you interpret what we see (observe) of the universe today, from the context of how we think the universe works...

But our two best theories of how things work, GR and QM don't agree on enough to make sense of the whole.

I continue to nit pic on how theory is presented in absolute terms.

Let's get one thing straight.... there are ''theories'' and then there are ''principles.'' In the case I was talking about, no being able to define time (keeping humans out of this) it is a principle of relativity that clocks are defined by moving matter. If there are no matter fields, there is no time, relativistically-speaking.

 

[OnlyMe]

What i am saying is that time doesn't make sense at this period of the universe.

Assuming your above reference was too the time period we refer to as the origin of the BB...

Let's get one thing straight.... there are ''theories'' and then there are ''principles.'' In the case I was talking about, no being able to define time (keeping humans out of this) it is a principle of relativity that clocks are defined by moving matter. If there are no matter fields, there is no time, relativistically-speaking.

Nightshift, something "making sense" and referencing any "period" (of time), requires awareness, human or otherwise! What we believe about events that predate our existence, become more uncertain the further removed they are from our experience. It seems to me that you and at times others confuse the special and general theories of relativity and how they are conceptually incorporated into how we see and understand, the world around us.

The BB is not a direct prediction of GR. It is a prediction based, how specific observations are interpreted through a particular conceptual projection of GR... It remains a logical conclusion only so long as some of the a priori assumptions about the nature and character of mass, inertia and gravitation are determined to be representations of reality. Most of the time mass, inertia and gravitation are considered within the context of relativity to be inherent properties of matter, (just as time is often thought of as having some substance). That is not the case within the context of QM. If inertia, mass and gravitation turn out fundamentally to be emergent, a great deal of what is predicted past and present by GR, based on conceptual interpretations, will be subject to considerable re-examination...

You began with a title involving time and general relativity, but your argument has expanded beyond relativity, to the point that conclusions become confused and inaccurate. Don't feel bad, almost all who attempt to address this and related ideas, run into the same problem. The subject involves both GR and QM and the two, as yet don't get along . . . theoretically or conceptually.

 

[Nightshift]

Assuming your above reference was too the time period we refer to as the origin of the BB...



Nightshift, something "making sense" and referencing any "period" (of time), requires awareness, human or otherwise!

I am inclined to believe yes, time is very much a subjective concept. I don't argue this with you. However, we can't just ignore how time is defined. My point is that time is defined by moving clocks in relativity, we've had no physicist in the history of relativity disagree with statement. The problem with periods before symmetry breaking occurred is that in a mathematical sense, you can't even describe time, because time is a measure of change and radiation fields are essentially static in relativity. Not to mention that the initial conditions of the universe doesn't even have a metric, it's a point ''not in space, nor in time.''

 

[paddoboy]

Let's get one thing straight.... there are ''theories'' and then there are ''principles.'' In the case I was talking about, no being able to define time (keeping humans out of this) it is a principle of relativity that clocks are defined by moving matter. If there are no matter fields, there is no time, relativistically-speaking.

Let's get another thing straight, scientific theories will always be scientific theories, that's a fact!.....and this is what makes science such a progressive, never ending refinement of everyday living knowledge and common sense.
The overwhelming, most likely accepted scenario of the Universe was it did have a beginning at what is commonly called the BB.
It is a fact that the BB/inflationary theory, states that 13.8 billion years ago, the observable Universe was confined to within the volume of an atomic nucleus......A state of existence that we know nought about.
The BB/Inflationary theory itself, may not be fact, but it is as well a supported scientific theory, as any scientific theory can be.
From that point, and inexplicitly it started to expand and evolve into what we call space and time...and space/time as some prefer to refer to it....No matter as yet.
So tell me please, as simply as possible, how you can claim time cannot exist without matter and that this is a directive of relativity.
Then tell your peers, that what they know as the BB/Inflationary theory is wrong.

Others have pointed out errors and erroneous assumptions in your maths, and I'm pointing out erroneous assumptions in what you claim regarding time and matter.

 

[arfa brane]

The only kind of time-independent information is fixed messages; if there is no universal time then the amount of information in the universe is fixed and not infinite. So what fixed it?

Furthermore, how do we reconcile fixed information with computation in general? How do we construct a theory that allows for changes in fixed information?
I think the informational aspect is another way to look at the problem of time, and in particular the differences between classical and quantum information. Time seems to "behave" quite differently in the quantum domain, where wavepackets are spread out over their worldlines

 

[phyti]

Let's get one thing straight.... there are ''theories'' and then there are ''principles.'' In the case I was talking about, no being able to define time (keeping humans out of this) it is a principle of relativity that clocks are defined by moving matter. If there are no matter fields, there is no time, relativistically-speaking.

There can be a clock in a remote region of space, free from gravitational effects of mass. Most probes with communication systems would require them.

 

[Nightshift]

There can be a clock in a remote region of space, free from gravitational effects of mass. Most probes with communication systems would require them.

Of course, but that's mechanical. That's a man made device, which is a clock, but originally the definition of moving matter implied clocks in the universe.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course, but that's mechanical. That's a man made device, which is a clock, but originally the definition of moving matter implied clocks in the universe.

But it still doesn't invalidate the fact that the BB says the Universe/space/time evolved from a hot dense state, [singularity] and that matter came a short but finite time later..

 

[Nightshift]

But it still doesn't invalidate the fact that the BB says the Universe/space/time evolved from a hot dense state, [singularity] and that matter came a short but finite time later..

Yeah that explanation hits well with laymans on the subject paddo, but it's a lot more complicated than that. During the period of the radiation epoch, there are no relativistic clocks and ... in geometrogenesis, where there is no matter there is no geometry. How do you propose that time be regathered?

You keep saying ''but this doesn't change this or that...'' actually when you learn the definitions correctly and start thinking about the origin of the universe without these simple layman answers, you might start understanding it's not as clear cut and there are serious problems viewing space and time fundamentally.

 

[paddoboy]

Yeah that explanation hits well with laymans on the subject paddo, but it's a lot more complicated than that. During the period of the radiation epoch, there are no relativistic clocks and ... in geometrogenesis, where there is no matter there is no geometry. How do you propose that time be regathered?

You keep saying ''but this doesn't change this or that...'' actually when you learn the definitions correctly and start thinking about the origin of the universe without these simple layman answers, you might start understanding it's not as clear cut and there are serious problems viewing space and time fundamentally.

Yeah, layman's terms it maybe...after all that's all I am. Still I can recognise bullshit when I see it, and as others have noted, some of your equations were just that.
So really, how in hell can I take notice of you.
The theory of the origin of the Universe I gave is correct....your "probably" comment earlier on, tells me you have nothing invalidating that scenario.
So space and consequently time, as it evolved, I would surmise evolved the geometry also......and again, matter came a short but finite time later.
If time had not evolved, neither would have space, neither would have the Universe....because ignoring the matter that came later, the Universe is space/time....and gravity a geometrical construct of that same space/time, in the presence of matter.

You do not see a relationship?

Again, in case you missed it.......

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
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.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


And that as far as I know, is the mainstream position.
The associated problem I see here with the increasing number of unqualified alternative theorists, is that they seem to want to wear their anti mainstream propaganda as a badge of honour...:shrug:

Until the subject is peer reviewed, they can wear it on their sleeves, and cut their wrists for all I care...it won't make a scrap of difference.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Until the subject is peer reviewed, they can wear it on their sleeves, and cut their wrists for all I care...it won't make a scrap of difference.

In other words, when someone has it all figured out, unless they write a paper there isn't a chance in hell that you'll ever have a clue. Ie, if they don't teach you then YOU lose.

 

[Nightshift]

In other words, when someone has it all figured out, unless they write a paper there isn't a chance in hell that you'll ever have a clue. Ie, if they don't teach you then YOU lose.

He totally ignored me the other day when I said Penrose has done similar things to remove time by noticing there were no relativistic clocks around during the radiation phase. He's ignoring all the other citations I gave supporting my views and claims, and yet he is stuck on my work not being published.

He has to learn, this is a forum, I have my own duty to prove what I am saying and on the crux of everything, I am the only one offering papers and scientific reasons for the claims.

 

[paddoboy]

He totally ignored me the other day when I said Penrose has done similar things to remove time by noticing there were no relativistic clocks around during the radiation phase. He's ignoring all the other citations I gave supporting my views and claims, and yet he is stuck on my work not being published.

And I have given many links also which you have not commented on.
Clocks manmade or otherwise are of no concern to me, and neither is the gathering of any anti mainstream clan to snipe away for their own apparent orgasmic pleasure.



H

He has to learn, this is a forum, I have my own duty to prove what I am saying and on the crux of everything, I am the only one offering papers and scientific reasons for the claims.

Your maths have been refuted by at least two experts for starters, and most would be's if they could be's experts such as yourself, should automatically know, there is no proof in science...just well supported nearly set in concrete theories such as BB, SR/GR and Evolution.
So you are prooving nought.
Come preach me your stuff when you have it peer reviewed and accepted.
I'l give you a hearing then.

 

[Nightshift]

Your maths have been refuted by at least two experts for starters,

Sorry.... by who?

 

[Nightshift]

And once you have told me who these two ''experts'' are, can you also reference their mathematical refutations, I have seen none. Just trolling and noise.

 

[paddoboy]

And once you have told me who these two ''experts'' are, can you also reference their mathematical refutations, I have seen none. Just trolling and noise.

Well as has been mentioned, your record speaks for itself.
If you check out the thread, you will know who the two experts are, as you well do now anyway...
And finally, if you did have the maths right, and you did have something invalidating the reality of time or its necessary existence, you would not really be here....would you?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well, if time prevents everything from happening at once, and time doesn't exist. Then everyone's theory is correct to an INFINITY!

I'm sure we are all pleased, saddened, and everything in between right now. But not as opposed to before, of course.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

paddoboy, I seek the benefit of your knowledge. To acquire the benefit of your Knowledge, I have no choice but to ask of you a few questions. Grok?

It is a fact that the BB/inflationary theory, states that 13.8 billion years ago, the observable Universe was confined to within the volume of an atomic nucleus......A state of existence that we know nought about.
...
From that point, and inexplicitly it started to expand and evolve into what we call space and time...and space/time as some prefer to refer to it....No matter as yet.

So..., In the ^^above quoted^^ you stated that : 13.8 BYA, "it started to expand and evolve into what we call space and time...No matter as yet".

If there was "no matter yet" :

1.) - What was this "it" that was expanding composed of?

2.) - What was this "it" expanding into? In other words, what was this "it" displacing to accommodate "it's" expansion?

paddoboy, a few more questions, so that I may continue to benefit from your knowledge.

But it still doesn't invalidate the fact that the BB says the Universe/space/time evolved from a hot dense state, [singularity] and that matter came a short but finite time later..

3.) - Is it a "fact" of the theory that : "that matter came a short but finite time later"?

4.) - If "it" had yet to expand/evolve into "what we call space and time" - how can you, or anyone, postulate, hypothesize or theorize what length of "time" that this "it" was manifest as "a hot dense state, [singularity]"?

paddoboy, once again, I am only asking these questions, so that I may acquire some benefit from your knowledge of the "facts" of the BB theory.

I thank you in advance for you sharing your knowledge.

 

[Nightshift]

Well, if time prevents everything from happening at once, and time doesn't exist. Then everyone's theory is correct to an INFINITY!

Oh, in relativity everything still happens at once... This isn't easy to explain, but let my at least try. This is just one of the bizarre things of relativity. We are special in this sense, that our brains have evolved to create a linear sense of time, because without it, there doesn't appear to be any conceivable way a human mind could comprehend itself or events. All there is in reality, are snapshots. There is no correlation between the snapshots. Correlation between snapshots may be understood when an observer is present because we have memory of a chronology of snapshots. There is no true chronology though.