Timeless GR

[Russ_Watters]

One naive question one might ask is, what is time?

Simply put: time is what clocks measure.

If time is a real tangible thing, and not just a reference variable stemming from the human imagination, I would like to see someone convert a bottle of time, into another tangible thing.

Would you similarly like to see someone bottle-up and convert color to another "thing"? Length?

Time isn't an object, it is a dimension. And even if it turns out that a theory can be developed that doesn't require using it in the same way we currently do, that doesn't change anything in our everyday perception. See, just like color, if time turns out to be an artifact of the way we perceive the universe, it will remain measurable and useful.

 

[BlackHoley]

Starting with your very first post, most of your posts have included insults and many have included little else.


Your video, time 3:28:

"When you develop this idea...which in the last 10 years I've been doing...it is casting doubt on Einsteinian Relativity and suggesting that the theory of gravity as described by Einstein's theory is undermining the relativity of simultenaity from within the theory."

Clearly, Barbour is quite aware that the idea he is advocating goes against GR, even if you are not.

Hold on and let me just have a look at what context he is talking about. I know all his writings so it would seem strange to think that his idea's are not consistent with relativity, quite the opposite in fact. It may have to do with different views of the principles, ie. Mach vs Einstein.

 

[BlackHoley]

One naive question one might ask is, what is time? If time is a real tangible thing, and not just a reference variable stemming from the human imagination, I would like to see someone convert a bottle of time, into another tangible thing. Time is in so many equations that define how other tangible things work and interact. I can turn matter into energy, or momentum into heat, etc. How about converting time into energy, as a demonstration that time is a real thing? For example, we can solve for time in the kinetic energy equation. This should tell us how to interact the tangible things like mass and energy, to convert time, using an experiment. If we can't do this, than either the theory is weak or time is more of a reference variable.

Time, as a reference variable, is needed because so many equations make use of it. If you got rid of time, even based on sound logic, all these same equations will need major modifications, That is a lot of work, and would make the experts, who use time, seem obsolete. It is much easier to suppress the few, than do the work or do the experiments as I propose. The C ground state creates the same practical problem, or a need to re-tool all the equations. But in both cases, it is far more powerful for predictions, since phenomena will not be reference dependent.



For example, if you look at the universe from the POV of a black hole reference, it sees a different energy balance than we see on earth. Many of the earth centric theories of the universe, could not be supported from the black hole reference. All energy coming into the black hole reference, from the universe, will be blue shifted, by GR, relative to what we see on earth. This will make the universe seem hotter. The black hole reference scientists would need different theories to explain this extra heat.

If we use the timeless state of C as the ground state, both earth and the black hole theory will agree. But again, this means work, while suppression is easier than the idea of starting over again.

Thanks for involving yourself and I will come to you soon, when I have dealt with Russ.

 

[BlackHoley]

Hold on and let me just have a look at what context he is talking about. I know all his writings so it would seem strange to think that his idea's are not consistent with relativity, quite the opposite in fact. It may have to do with different views of the principles, ie. Mach vs Einstein.

Yes I was right... he is making a bit of an error here, or he isn't clear enough. You'll see he is confronting the ''Einsteinian'' view of space-time... but really what he means is Minkowki spacetime. Machian relativity casts doubt on this by saying in each instant only positions are defined relative to each other and so only these positions change relative to each other in a phase space.

Actually, Barbour's approach is more relativistic (if one can imagine such a thing) than that of the spacetime approach by Minkowski on Einsteins theory.

 

[BlackHoley]

Would you similarly like to see someone bottle-up and convert color to another "thing"? Length?

You can see length and color. No one can see time.

 

[wellwisher]

The relativity of simultaneity creates problems for many formation and propagation theories of the universe, since another reference will not see the same thing. The cosmic background radiation we see from the earth, is not the same in an another reference, due the relativity of simultaneity The black hole will see hotter background radiation. We can't have it both ways. Only with a C ground state is this eliminated.

From a black hole reference it sees a younger and faster evolving universe. For this to happen with so much matter and energy, they would need new forces to explain it. Many of our theories will not work there.

 

[BlackHoley]

One naive question one might ask is, what is time?

It's not naive question at all... that's the most difficult part of understanding what is time... but time appears to be something subjective we attach to changes in the universe.... if there is an agreement there is a change, we begin to subjectively imprint a directionality to time and therefore we create what is called ''the psychological arrow of time'' which fully recognizes a past and future to how subjective experience of the changes, creating a chronology.

There is no true chronology however, because simultaneity fails to allow two people to always agree when things happen in the universe. To give you some idea how you can visualize this, take a look at this animation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif

As you can see, events A, B and C arguably happen side by side, however depending on the motion which takes on either positive or negative numbers, events are not always clear when they happen.

 

[wellwisher]

The closest physical and measurable concept to time is entropy. The arrow of universal entropy increases; has to increase. An increase in entropy absorbs energy. If we cool something in the fridge, the food item lasts longer; time slows down because the rate of entropy increase is slower. If we add energy it ages faster and will spoil quicker.

Relative to space-time, if time slows or speeds up, the entropy will also slow or speed up. The twin paradox has one twin more preserved (younger) and the other twin older and closer to his used by date. There is a direct impact on system entropy.

We can't time travel without altering time, since this will take energy, and there is no perpetual motion. We will add entropy and alter time.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The closest physical and measurable concept to time is entropy. The arrow of universal entropy increases; has to increase. An increase in entropy absorbs energy. If we cool something in the fridge, the food item lasts longer; time slows down because the rate of entropy increase is slower. If we add energy it ages faster and will spoil quicker.

In order to "cool something in the fridge" requires energy (power*time). The energy the refrigerator consumes causes an even greater increase in entropy than if it were not consuming energy.

If the power source was an internal combustion engine forcing an electric generator to rotate, then fuel was consumed, and oh, BTW, the process was not 100% efficient. So bottom line is that in order to save the food a few more days in the cool refrigerator you increased the rate of entropy like you had so much money you had enough to burn, and burn it you did. Problem is, eventually there is nothing to burn. Mass evolves to space, and if you speed up that process, then...well..you've sped up the process of entropy! You can't get that back!

 

[Russ_Watters]

You can see length and color. No one can see time.

No, you can't see length: but you can see how long an object is.

How about mass? Can you see mass? Can you see sound? Tension? Elasticity?

Since when has seeing a property with your eyes been required to consider it real?

The point about color though is that it is created by your eyes (and devices we design to simulate our eyes). It doesn't exist by itself in nature. Even if the same is true about time, it will remain a useful concept.

 

[Russ_Watters]

The relativity of simultaneity creates problems for many formation and propagation theories of the universe, since another reference will not see the same thing. The cosmic background radiation we see from the earth, is not the same in an another reference, due the relativity of simultaneity The black hole will see hotter background radiation. We can't have it both ways.

Nonsense. Relativity works great the way it is.

 

[Grumpy]

BlackHoley

You can see length and color. No one can see time.

Cosmologists see it every day. Time is seen as a distance in spacetime. Look at something 100 light years away and you are seeing that point in spacetime as it was 100 years ago. Even you see time, the sunlight hitting your head began it's journey toward you 8 minutes ago. You think you see events near you instantly, but they are all some time in your past, the fact that the gap is only milliseconds gives you the illusion you are seeing things in the present. We all move through a real dimension of time, each according to the rate of time's passage within their own frame. You cannot NOT move through time, whether you can see that movement or not.

but time appears to be something subjective we attach to changes in the universe

And, believe it or not, time passes as you sleep, even if you aren't creating subjective opinions about that fact.

Time is a permanent, indivisible characteristic of spacetime(IE the Universe). You are a temporary phenomenon, time is eternal and at some time in the future will continue on after you have ceased to exist.

We MEASURE time by observing events, but neither the events nor our observation creates time. And it is not subjective, though you measurement of it is.

Grumpy

 

[Aqueous Id]

In order to "cool something in the fridge" requires energy (power*time).

Or you can say that heat is extracted from the inside of the box by pumping it to a heat sink, which is the air outside the box. And keep in mind that unless the power is constant, which is not true for the electricity used to run a compressor, then it's not correct to say energy = power * time. Instead we say energy equals the area under the power curve, as measured over time. As you see, if the power is constant, then that curve is a horizontal line, and the area under the line is a rectangle. The area of that rectangle is power * time, so that accounts for the answer you gave. Just keep in mind that there will be other cases, like the power spike when the compressor cuts in, resolving to some fairly constant drain, and the loss of power when it shuts off. Here you'll notice that your energy use depends a lot on how often the thermostat is telling the compressor to start. That depends on the temperature of the room, so as you might expect the energy use increases as the room gets warmer, and decreases when the room gets cooler. But that would all be illustrated by looking at a plot of the actual power curves from one case to the next.

The energy the refrigerator consumes causes an even greater increase in entropy than if it were not consuming energy.

Very good, MD. I see you are making strides. I think you have just proved wellwisher to be an entropy troll for which the members have arranged a free sitting for your avatar at Pauline's Poodle Palace, for a deluxe makeover. Oh, BTW don't listen to the guy grumbling about entropy as he sweeps up clippings in the corner. He's just jealous that he didn't get a beaded curtain and a bong for taking science to the stoner level of interpretation.

If the power source was an internal combustion engine forcing an electric generator to rotate, then fuel was consumed, and oh, BTW, the process was not 100% efficient. So bottom line is that in order to save the food a few more days in the cool refrigerator you increased the rate of entropy like you had so much money you had enough to burn, and burn it you did. Problem is, eventually there is nothing to burn. Mass evolves to space, and if you speed up that process, then...well..you've sped up the process of entropy! You can't get that back!

Close enough for government work. I'm going to give you and A on this post, MD, recognizing you've come a long way. Congratulations, and say hi to the Dobermans who are just wagging their tails, happy to see you.

 

[BlackHoley]

The closest physical and measurable concept to time is entropy.

This is 100% correct.

In fact, bonus points to you! A theory which will incorporate Barbour's shape dynamics to pure relativity will be one which makes use of statistical entropic laws. This will also lead to a theory of gravity called gravitational thermodynamic theory.

 

[BlackHoley]

BlackHoley



Cosmologists see it every day. Time is seen as a distance in spacetime.

Science buffs had the right terminology when they described it as a ''timescape.'' This is probably a better word, there is no ''timescape'' but there is a ''spacescape'' undeniably.

 

[Grumpy]

wellwisher

The closest physical and measurable concept to time is entropy.

100% wrong. Time is the closest concept to time. Entropy is a direction that time goes toward and a measure of how much time has passed in the Universe as a whole, or a closed portion of the whole. It's like you are saying the water running down the hill(time moving toward entropy)is a position on that hill. It makes no sense at all.

BlackHoley

There is no time in general relativity.

Now you are simply lying, through ignorance is my guess. Spacetime. Speed of light=186,000 miles/second=c. Energy=Mass times c squared. I could go on, but your statement is busted as idiocy. Time is absolutely essential in both SR and GR. If you can makes such ludicrous statements you know nothing about Relativity. In fact you sound downright Cranky. Paddoboy has a whole thread on how not to be a Crank, maybe you should take a look at his 12 rules, they cover your errors pretty well(I think you've broken most of them).

Grumpy

 

[BlackHoley]

wellwisher



100% wrong. Time is the closest concept to time.

Time is the closest concept to time? lol


Well of course it is, anything itself is a definition of itself, that's a given. But what is the true definition of time? The true definition of time is change. Just like how when you watch the clock tick, you don't observe an external time, but you do measure a change given by the hands of clock ect.

Entropy is by far the closest definition of time, it's a measure of statistical change in systems.

 

[BlackHoley]

Now you are simply lying, ....

.... I refer you back to all the references in the OP, in which it is clear, you have not read any of them. Or you wouldn't be calling me a liar. It's a well-established fact that GR has no global time. Numerous papers I linked explain this.

read them and educate yourself.

 

[BlackHoley]

No, you can't see length: but you can see how long an object is.

Well, position is an observable; positions involve an affine length $$x$$.

 

[Grumpy]

BlackHoley

I refer you back to all the references in the OP, in which it is clear, you have not read any of them. Or you wouldn't be calling me a liar.

I'm calling your statement a lie, you said there is no time in GR. That is a blatant, stupid and ignorant lie. Whether you make a habit of lying is totally up to you, I make no such judgement. All I can say is that if you think there is no time in Relativity you obviously do not know the first thing(literally, c is the second postulate and it includes a term for time)about Relativity and should never claim to do so. If your references say the same thing they are just as ignorant.

Time is the closest concept to time? lol

Time(the thing itself)is what informs our concept of time(our subjective understanding subject to change if it does not conform to the actual dimension we call time, part of the 4D spacetime of Relativity).

But what is the true definition of time? The true definition of time is change.

No, that is the definition of our measurement of time's passage, just like leaves and fuzzy seeds allow us to see movement of the air that is there whether there are leaves or fluffy seeds present or not. Time is a dimension which we travel through just like any other dimension, except we can only travel one way(toward the future or toward higher entropy, which is the same thing). And time exists independent of whether there are events or not, in fact it passes at it's highest rate in the ABSENCE of events with which to measure it. You can't tell a map from the territory the map only describes.

Science buffs had the right terminology when they described it as a ''timescape.'' This is probably a better word, there is no ''timescape'' but there is a ''spacescape'' undeniably.

Actually, it's just better to acknowledge that spacetime is as GR says it is, because that is what we see in the data. And despite your biases, time IS a distance in spacetime, one you can see in any telescope.

Grumpy