What is time??

[Reiku]

I think my earlier post has gone straight over a few heads.

I don't think the universe "needs" observers to ascribe meaning to events. Events have intervals of time between them regardless of whether an observer is around to measure them.

Surely to be seperated in time, you'd need to ascribe them with a past?

That was the whole point though, past states are illusions in physics. The past and future don't exist, so I cannot see clearly why anyone might think events are distanced in time?

 

[arfa brane]

That was the whole point though, past states are illusions in physics. The past and future don't exist, so I cannot see clearly why anyone might think events are distanced in time?

So how did you manage to "distance" your post from my one? Was it anything to do with the time I posted mine, then the time you posted yours, or was that all an illusion?

 

[Reiku]

So how did you manage to "distance" your post from my one? Was it anything to do with the time I posted mine, then the time you posted yours, or was that all an illusion?

Trick question.

The time you made your post was the present time, just as the time now is the present time. The past does not exist.

 

[Reiku]

"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion" - Albert Einstein

 

[river]

@river: So you're saying energy and matter aren't related?

no

what I'm saying is that any relation we understand between energy and matter is perspective based

What do you mean by: "interactions of them" ?

meaning that matter interacts amongst its self , regardless of any observer

Are you also saying an interaction is not a relation?

yes

About observers: these don't have to be conscious, a particle can be an observer. In that sense, conscious observers are just "special particles".

what would , and how does this particle observe though ?

 

[arfa brane]

what I'm saying is that any relation we understand between energy and matter is perspective based

Ok, what perspective would you give an electron which is orbiting a nucleus?

Would you say the nucleus is "observing" the electron's energy, or the electron is "observing" the nucleus's energy?

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
what I'm saying is that any relation we understand between energy and matter is perspective based

Ok, what perspective would you give an electron which is orbiting a nucleus?

above

Would you say the nucleus is "observing" the electron's energy, or the electron is "observing" the nucleus's energy?

is the electron able to develop a theory ?

 

[river]

my point is that time is an observational perspective between things and their interactions

thats all time is

to the objects our perspective doesn't mean anything

is there a relation between objects ? of course

but it is the objects that dictate the movement , not our perspective

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
what I'm saying is that any relation we understand between energy and matter is perspective based

Ok, what perspective would you give an electron which is orbiting a nucleus?

that which it has

Would you say the nucleus is "observing" the electron's energy, or the electron is "observing" the nucleus's energy?

electron is not observing

the electron is reacting to the nucleous , physically

 

[arfa brane]

my point is that time is an observational perspective between things and their interactions

What exactly is an "observational perspective"?

Is it: "that which it has" or can you do a little better than that?

An electron is an observer, as far as the universe is concerned. But I doubt that you believe that or understand it. I doubt that you understand much of what you've been posting, you just make it up as you go, right?

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
my point is that time is an observational perspective between things and their interactions

What exactly is an "observational perspective"?

any intelligent living beings observation of the movement of things

Is it: "that which it has" or can you do a little better than that?

directly above

An electron is an observer, as far as the universe is concerned.

how ? how does an electron , which is a particle and/or wave become an observer ?

But I doubt that you believe that or understand it.

I don't

I doubt that you understand much of what you've been posting, you just make it up as you go, right?

I have thought about time for a long time

if you think that time is about the electron fine

then what of the proton perspective ?

 

[arfa brane]

how ? how does an electron , which is a particle and/or wave become an observer ?

An electron observes other electrons, and any particles with charge. Electrons absorb and emit photons, which corresponds to observation.

The universe does just fine without conscious observers with a "perspective". The relations between events, between particles, and between different levels of energy existed before we came along and noticed. Also, I didn't say time is about the electron, I said time is about relations between events.

 

[Reiku]

A particle as an observer is fine, but I don't see how it defines time either.

 

[arfa brane]

A particle as an observer is fine, but I don't see how it defines time either.

A person as an observer is fine too. How does a person define time?

 

[Reiku]

A person as an observer is fine too. How does a person define time?

If you mean the object on the wall which we call the clock, then we invented it. Days, minutes seconds, all man made concepts.

If one asks why we sense time, that is due to a gene called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus.

 

[river]

A person as an observer is fine too. How does a person define time?

the measurement of the movement of things , mathematically

a three dimensional grid

with time being the fourth dimension because of the change of position of an object , anywhere on that grid , 360degrees

 

[Dywyddyr]

If one asks why we sense time, that is due to a gene called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus.

Please stop posting this nonsense.
The suprachiasmatic nucleus is:
A) not a gene and
B) not (to what evidence we have) responsible for us "sensing time".

 

[arfa brane]

Well, I for one am glad that's been cleared up.

 

[river]

Well, I for one am glad that's been cleared up.

anything else

arfa , about time ?

 

[Reiku]

Please stop posting this nonsense.
The suprachiasmatic nucleus is:
A) not a gene and
B) not (to what evidence we have) responsible for us "sensing time".

Have you read up on it?

''The circadian rhythm in the SCN is generated by a gene expression cycle in individual SCN neurons.''

I mean, fairdo's, it's not directly a gene itself but is generated by gene expression cycles...

Anyway,

''The neuronal and hormonal activities it generates regulate many different body functions in a 24-hour cycle, using around 20,000 neurons''

''Organisms in every kingdom of life—bacteria,[2] plants, fungi, and animals—show genetically-based 24-hour rhythms.''

There are actually about several clocks in the human body. If this is not the regulation of our perception of time what is?

''Many aspects of mammalian behavior and physiology show circadian rhythmicity, including sleep, physical activity, alertness, hormone levels, body temperature, immune function, and digestive activity. All of these diverse rhythms are controlled by a single tiny brain area, the SCN, and are lost if the SCN is destroyed.''

From the wiki article no less. It is the biological clock which gives us our sense of time. Even wiki's related articles which can be read is

See alsoChronobiology
Photosensitive ganglion cell
(Sense of time)

It's quite clear the author even there is likening the SCN to the sense of time as well. In fact, the first time I heard about the SCN was from Michio Kaku who said it regulated our sense of time and that we had about seven internal biological clocks. Our sense of time is one of them.