Thanks for that, I won't go on a tangent to the thread, it is just that you made a comment that fits in, with the way time operates apart from being a dimension, but other than that. I was only curious as to whether you were going with the article or using it to give your thread impetus in another direction.
Time itself has a biased flow direction.
- Thread starter Billy T
- Start date
Thanks for that, I won't go on a tangent to the thread, it is just that you made a comment that fits in, with the way time operates apart from being a dimension, but other than that. I was only curious as to whether you were going with the article or using it to give your thread impetus in another direction.
You should listen to Gerhard, Billy. You can't see time flowing, all you can see is things happening. Motion occurs. Change occurs. Events occur. You can assign a coordinate and call it time, but the thing you call "physical time" isn't physical at all.
What caught my attention was the idea of time being bias in flow, bias meaning tendency in one way out of two or many other, but does not exclude going in the other direction, such as it seems to momentarily with QM.
Somebody once suggested to me that the force that causes time, flows in both directions but only slightly more in one direction - the bias you might say - so that time, which is a residue of the binary action, flows in one direction for us.
If the illustration Billy T gave me is original, then there is a lot more to it,
keep talking Billy T.
Firstly: I didn´t "listen to him." I read what he had to say, suggested nicely that he was off thread and probably speaking of subjective time. Then to help him get on thread or at least understand what thread was about I "invented" (but surely not the first to do so) and gave an easy to understand example of parity. He seems to have appreciated my help.
On you point about not seeing time flow you are preaching to the choir. I have made at least two post pointing out that time, T is just a non-existing but very convenient intermediate parameter in the equations that do describe physical events. Quickly for third time and in greatly simplified version, assume there are only two objects in the universe, a & b perhaps two mutually orbiting planets with motion as a function of time t given by:
a(t,Xa) = A(t,Xa) where A(t,Xa) is a mathematical expression, perhaps using trig functions, etc. The space coordinates of a, (x,y,z), will be represent by Xa as I´m to lazy too write all again. And likewise b(t,Xb) = B(t,Xb) a different math expression.
Solve each of these two equation for t and then set them equal to have one equation directly relating A"(Xa,Xb) to B"(Xa,Xb) in which t does not even appear.
I.e. A"(Xa,Xb) = B"(Xa,Xb) = t, which we forget about & the " indicates that A" is the equation that we got from A by solving it for t.
SUMMARY: Not only does time not flow, time does not even exist as T can in principle be eliminated TOTALLY in the equations describing the universe. I.e. everything in the universe can be described directly in terms of how the observable real objects and events interact with no mention of time, which is just the convenient parameter normally found in descriptive equations of physics and used to keep the equations more simple.
Because in the maco-world we know a photo of a whole egg preceded the photo of the egg mess on the floor we can always can tell which is "before" and which is "after." I.e. time does seem to "flow" in one direction, and we falsely speak of it doing so. (Like saying "the sun is rising" is not very accurate except as our subject view.)* This is usually not true in the world of a few particles, but when "weak forces" are significant in the interactions we can again, with sometimes high probability, tell which photo was the "before."
* I have never heard anyone correctly say: "The earth´s spin has brought me back into daylight again."
Last edited by a moderator:
Ohhh Time really IS Money! Whereas Money is an abstract (and intrinsically valueless) placeholder used to trade disparate commodities, Time is an abstract, potentially nonexistent placeholder used to relate disparate events/motions.
Fountain of youth is there ! :itold: (Google it, if you do not believe me.)
Fountain Of Youth Accessory Kit
Fountain Of Youth Accessory Kit
Yes, but these non-existing items are related as Money, invested does compound with time passing. Both are also useful fictions when keeping records (accounting, birthdays etc.)Ohhh Time really IS Money! Whereas Money is an abstract (and intrinsically valueless) placeholder used to trade disparate commodities, Time is an abstract, potentially nonexistent placeholder used to relate disparate events/motions.
If this is true, then why say this?
If a particle transitions through states ABC, does the transition CBA mean it went backward in time?
If it did, how would you know?
Do particles have memory, or clocks?
Could it be that the next event cannot happen before those that have already occurred?
Because normally that is how equations telling particle (or car, etc) motions are given. I started from that accepted point and then eliminated all reference to time in new set of equations that also describe the motions of all objects (and particles) in the universe directly in terms of what can be observed instead of in terms of what can not be observed (time) to show that time is just a useful parameter in the normally used equations, not any thing real. Real things have properties. Time does not.
One can, and normally does, tell the position of the moon wrt to earth despite it greatest speed by far being along (with minor Earth induced wobbles) along an elliptical orbit about the sun. You can tell the position of a pencil rolling on the floor of your moving car wrt to the top right front corner of passenger´s car seat. In both these and almost all case, you describe the motion in equations with four parameters: (t, x, y, z) where the zero of each is arbitrary. I.e. (0,0,0,0) location is a free choice you make. But what is observable is the relationship between two (or more) real things, not one thing and time.
On 1: No It means just what you said. two different sequences of states
On 2: It didn´t so you don´t
On 3: No& No. For example start with very many identical radio active particles which have a half life of one day. Those that are still the same one year later still have a half life of one day.
On 4: Not sure what you are asking, but "cause" proceeds "effect" but on an atomic scale it may be impossible to tell which is which if your are not watching the evolution but only have the complete description of the two different states.
Sorry Billy. I'll read the thread more carefully next time. In fact, I'll do that and give a response to the OP.
Gerhard: I think the "direction" associated with time is a figure of speech. If you look at the kinetic theory gif you see particles moving in all directions, but there is no true direction to the evolution of the ensemble. People talk about entropy, and I feel similar about that. IMHO it's just "sameness". A concentration of energy can do work, whereafter the energy isn't quite so concentrated any more. That's how the universe works.
I am joining this a bit late, so sorry if I am covering old ground.
What is the problem with time only going in one direction?
What other direction could time go in?
Time works from events to consequences.
It is necessary for a Universe in which there is causation.
Gravity is similar.
Gravity always attracts.
What is the problem with time only going in one direction?
What other direction could time go in?
Time works from events to consequences.
It is necessary for a Universe in which there is causation.
Gravity is similar.
Gravity always attracts.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
If you give a cosnologist an image of the universe in which time flows in the opposite direction, it will be trivial for him to reformulate the Natural Laws to accommodate.
If you look at the chain of events from a microcosmological point of view, cause and effect can be easily defined going in the opposite direction.
A perfect illustration of my point. All we have to do is redefine the Four Fundamental Forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces) to switch repulsion with attraction (or in the case of gravity, to replace attraction with repulsion). The supporting math will practically unfold by itself.
In fact, the only reason we define time as flowing in this direction is that this is the direction in which we experience it. For all we know, perhaps the universe actually is going the other way, and it's our senses that reverse it experientially. In a few billion years all lifeforms will degrade into basic organic molecules, then vanish into the primordial ooze. Then the Earth will become hotter, then a liquid, then a gas, and be absorbed by the Sun. The galaxies will congeal, then they'll all fold in on one another. Ultimately the Big Crunch will occur, and all the positive and negative particles will cancel each other out as the universe becomes a point-mass with a temperature with quite a few more zeroes than we're accustomed to. And then, in the last tiny fraction of a yoctosecond, it will vanish forever.
It's counter-intuitive, but gravity attracts even when T is reversed. The masses apparently being "repulsed" from each other are doing so because of the energy imparted to them when they had been in contact in the past.
Example. You tip over a glass on a table in a room.
It rolls to the edge then falls to the floor, smashing into twenty pieces.
Say you could reverse time with a lever.
What would happen to the smashed glass?
Would it?
a) Act like we see in a film played backwards, reforming the glass and floating back up to the table?
b) Act under the effects of reversed gravity, but not remaking the glass, all the parts floating up to the ceiling?
c) Just lie on the floor.
It seems to me that a world where time was reversed would not have the attributes of the world we see now.
There wouldn't be planets or stars, because they would not have formed under gravity.
It rolls to the edge then falls to the floor, smashing into twenty pieces.
Say you could reverse time with a lever.
What would happen to the smashed glass?
Would it?
a) Act like we see in a film played backwards, reforming the glass and floating back up to the table?
b) Act under the effects of reversed gravity, but not remaking the glass, all the parts floating up to the ceiling?
c) Just lie on the floor.
It seems to me that a world where time was reversed would not have the attributes of the world we see now.
There wouldn't be planets or stars, because they would not have formed under gravity.
Time does not flow, time is not "real." Time does not have even one property and does not exist so time can not be reversed. I confess to badly naming the thread.
Time is just a very convenient, but not essential, coordinate in the normally written equations describing how real objects interact. As demonstrated quickly in post 44 and more completely* in posts some years ago, the time coordinate can be totally eliminated (in principle) in all the equations describing the universe (and tiny parts there of).
In the conventionally used equations the parameter T does appear. The tread is asking what do these equations describe if every T is replaced by -T. In all "macro-scale" cases it is just like a movie being shown "backwards", but the statement about entropy in that world, if it existed, would be that "in closed systems decreases" (or "stays the same" if every thing is reversible). I.e. the broken glass you mention would jump up off the floor and become whole again but that is not what happens in the world, so despite there being few other violations** of physical laws in a macro world as shown by the backward flowing movie, we know that it is not the actual world we live in that the backwards movie is displaying.
This is not true of most few particle events, all when there are no "weak forces" acting. I.e. as then everything is "reversible" there is no entropy change so you can not tell if the "film is running" backwards or forward. The economist article reports experimental confirmation of what has long been believed true. I.e. that when there are weak forces acting then it is possible to tell (with better than 50/50 probability) if the film is being shown backwards.
The article is not suggesting that there is something called time flowing "forward" that can be conceptually reversed so that in some such "time reversed" universe, gravity would be repulsive. I.e. that two objects not glued together or bound by atomic force would be pushed apart by gravity although that is what the false display of a backwards shown film would present.
*Post 44 does not tell how to treat particles (to remove explicit time) that return to the same spatial point as the earlier posts did. - an indexing counter is needed.
** Probably most important ones are gravity and like electrical charges would be attractive, but unlike charges would mutually repel.
I think that some physicists
confuse their mathematical reasoning with the real world.
They tend to believe that if something makes sense mathematically,
that it is a possible description of the real world.
It may be so, but then again it may not.
"Minus apples" makes sense in mathematics, but there is no such thing in existence.
Reversed time is the same.
You need proof from the real world to say whether ideas have scientific truth or not.
confuse their mathematical reasoning with the real world.
They tend to believe that if something makes sense mathematically,
that it is a possible description of the real world.
It may be so, but then again it may not.
"Minus apples" makes sense in mathematics, but there is no such thing in existence.
Reversed time is the same.
You need proof from the real world to say whether ideas have scientific truth or not.
Last edited:
The notion of time comes about because of the way we experience the world.
We believe in time because we can only see things existing in one spatial position at a time.
These form a sequential series from cause to effect.
From what has already happened we can predict future spatial positions.
I can see how you might come to believe that time is an illusion,
but what of phenomena that require time to explain them, such as mass increasing with velocity?
Anything that involves speed, must use the notion of time.
The speed at which something happens can change the effect.
eg the capture of neutrons by an atomic nucleus.
Last edited:
I agree in general with your conclusion about time not being an objective thing.
Specifically I see time as a correlation between the event of interest and the current clock event. It's an ordering process for historical purposes and for analysis like the following.
Someone records the daily rainfall for a month for a small region and the daily water level of a river in that region. They plot the rainfall for each day vs the river level for the same day. Typically a pattern will indicate the river level rises (with a small delay) as the rainfall increases. The time has been eliminated in the comparison, and the conclusion is, the rainfall causes the river level to rise.
The main point is, time served a purpose, but not as a cause for anything.
That's why I chose your phrase "motion as a function of time". It's misleading since time does not cause anything. It's as you say, a useful tool. Your interpretation of a reverse sequence is encouraging, vs the unqualified time travel response.
Radioactive decay, particle transitions, coin tossing, photon emission/absorption,... are all time independent. An electron doesn't know how many photons it absorbs in an hour. Each one is the first, it has no memory, it needs no memory. Personifying objects leads you into the swamp of darkness.
Time is not a dimension (except in a math sense), therefore is has no direction, thus no arrow. We don't move into the future, we become aware of new events, and even then our perception is after the fact or historical. You can't perceive an event that hasn't happened, therefore the next event has to follow the 'sequence of accumulated events'/ history. There is no choice.
Looking at a Minkowski diagram, the vertical axis is ct, the horizontal is vt. What is being compared, distance to distance, vt to ct, the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same (countem) number of ticks.
Time is reduced to counting ticks (beans according to Farsight).
I propose leaving the idea of 'the river of time' to the poets and songwriters.
CPT:
No one knows the deep mysteries of this except a few chosen members of an elite group. They say, if you look in a mirror, your left hand looks like your right hand. That's weird. It can also be comforting, as when the first man looking at the surface of a lake, saw his reflection and said 'Now I know I'm not alone!'.
entropy:
a flimsy definition of a tired universe
Unless forces (gravitational, nuclear, em, unkown)and genetic codes (plant, animal, human) are eliminated, the universe will not reach that state.
another case of tunnel vision
or
the flys eye view
Specifically I see time as a correlation between the event of interest and the current clock event. It's an ordering process for historical purposes and for analysis like the following.
Someone records the daily rainfall for a month for a small region and the daily water level of a river in that region. They plot the rainfall for each day vs the river level for the same day. Typically a pattern will indicate the river level rises (with a small delay) as the rainfall increases. The time has been eliminated in the comparison, and the conclusion is, the rainfall causes the river level to rise.
The main point is, time served a purpose, but not as a cause for anything.
That's why I chose your phrase "motion as a function of time". It's misleading since time does not cause anything. It's as you say, a useful tool. Your interpretation of a reverse sequence is encouraging, vs the unqualified time travel response.
Radioactive decay, particle transitions, coin tossing, photon emission/absorption,... are all time independent. An electron doesn't know how many photons it absorbs in an hour. Each one is the first, it has no memory, it needs no memory. Personifying objects leads you into the swamp of darkness.
Time is not a dimension (except in a math sense), therefore is has no direction, thus no arrow. We don't move into the future, we become aware of new events, and even then our perception is after the fact or historical. You can't perceive an event that hasn't happened, therefore the next event has to follow the 'sequence of accumulated events'/ history. There is no choice.
Looking at a Minkowski diagram, the vertical axis is ct, the horizontal is vt. What is being compared, distance to distance, vt to ct, the motion of an object to the motion of light for the same (countem) number of ticks.
Time is reduced to counting ticks (beans according to Farsight).
I propose leaving the idea of 'the river of time' to the poets and songwriters.
CPT:
No one knows the deep mysteries of this except a few chosen members of an elite group. They say, if you look in a mirror, your left hand looks like your right hand. That's weird. It can also be comforting, as when the first man looking at the surface of a lake, saw his reflection and said 'Now I know I'm not alone!'.
entropy:
a flimsy definition of a tired universe
Unless forces (gravitational, nuclear, em, unkown)and genetic codes (plant, animal, human) are eliminated, the universe will not reach that state.
another case of tunnel vision
or
the flys eye view
That does not require time to explain. You explained it correctly - i.e. mass increases with speed.
Note also that neither the speed nor the mass increase in your reference frame will be the same as in mine, yet both of us will say the mass increased with SPEED, not time. What you are confused by is that often we say the speed increased with time AND that the mass increased with time, but time had NOTHING to due with the mass increased by speed. Take an hour or only a minute to make the same speed change and get the same mass change.