| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"a643155" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2005 07:37:26 PM |
| Object: |
Can time be separated from space? |
Hi,
I'm wondering if anyone could give an example of a physical event
that involves time, but doesn't involve space (spacial dimension,
spacial coordinates, etc.) in any way, even behind the scene, free of
spacial-motional causality, so to speak. E.g. a change of electrical
charge of an object which rests in space (relative to the observer,
just to make my point), is nevertheless caused by motion of electrons,
or a change of temperature is caused by motion of atoms, etc.
The way we measure time also does seem to always involve spacial
motion, in one way or another -- we measure (or perceive, in wider
sense) it by our pace, by our heart rate, by motion of the sun, by the
frequency of light emitted during transition of electrons from one
energy state to another, which is accompanied by a spacial movement of
electrons "down" towards the nucleus, and so on. Can we measure time
without bringing in spacial changes?
I guess this question is very much related to the very definition of
motion. In other words, is there such a thing as non-spacial motion, a
motion in wider sense (a "change", perhaps), i.e. a truly space-free
change of a physical quantity?
This could also be related to energy transformations -- perhaps an
example of such physical property or entity would be such that the
kinetic energy isn't involved in any way, but I can't come up with such
example.
To go even further, is there such a natural property of time that
could be used to devise an ultimate measuring unit of it (theoretically
speaking of course), without resorting to spacial movements to measure
time? For example, to measure a distance from A to B we don't need to
bring time into the measuring process, but to measure 1 day we would
resort to "a period which earth takes to rotate once around its axis".
This question is perhaps beyond known at the moment, but are there
respectable studies of this subject, or is it at least complete
nonsense?
Thanks,
a.
.
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
26 Mar 2005 11:16:58 PM |
|
|
Dear Lefty:
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:zYmdnQ213eWWqNvfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
....
I dont know if you are familiar with experiments which
produce a
particle and an antiparticle from an empty vacuum.
I think that this suggests that there is structure on the
subquantum
level which is invisible to us, but it does exist. It also ties
into my
ideas about time ceasing to exist at the quantum scale - etc
etc.
Dark matter could be a result of this unseen structure on the
subquantum
level. It would certainly be invisible, except possibly for
some very
subtle, almost imperceptible effects.
Maybe it's nonsense, maybe it's really a good explanation of
dark matter.
Who knows.
Why would this "structure" be concentrated near the rims of
spiral galaxies?
If c_gravity is = c, then temporary particles will NOT interact
in the way that is required. Additionally, too much gamma would
be incidentally produced by intruding radiation deflecting one of
the pair...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 09:27:38 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Nkr1e.6322$Mt5.5740@fed1read01...
Dear Lefty:
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:zYmdnQ213eWWqNvfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
...
I dont know if you are familiar with experiments which
produce a
particle and an antiparticle from an empty vacuum.
I think that this suggests that there is structure on the
subquantum
level which is invisible to us, but it does exist. It also ties
into my
ideas about time ceasing to exist at the quantum scale - etc
etc.
Dark matter could be a result of this unseen structure on the
subquantum
level. It would certainly be invisible, except possibly for
some very
subtle, almost imperceptible effects.
Maybe it's nonsense, maybe it's really a good explanation of
dark matter.
Who knows.
Why would this "structure" be concentrated near the rims of
spiral galaxies?
If c_gravity is = c, then temporary particles will NOT interact
in the way that is required. Additionally, too much gamma would
be incidentally produced by intruding radiation deflecting one of
the pair...
David A. Smith
I honestly have no idea whatsoever. But it does seem to be a plausible
argument. Most physicists would agree that the quantum world is brimming
with "structure" of some kind. I also agree that this makes sense, and seems
to be coroborated by observations.
I think that if I were cornered on this, I would say that the quantum world
is a boundary condition, a boundary of scale. There is lots of structure
down there, but it doesent exist relative to an observer - and yet it is
indeed present in an absolute sense. It really does exist. So, it is
invisible, but it is there.
There may be a very small measurable effect when you are looking at cubic
light years of space. Perhaps this would explain why there is a measurable
force which appears to come from "nowhere". It really does come from
nowhere, because "nowhere" is a "somewhere" which really does exist !!
Haaaaaa.
Structures in the 3rd dimension are fluctuating just as anything else we
observe in the non-quantum world. Somehow, these structures poke their head
just barely above water - peeking their heads back into the 4th dimension -
just partially - and only very briefly - and it becomes a sort of background
energy which is invisible because it is %99.999 nonexistent - and yet can be
measured if you have enough of it.
This may be a very hairbrained idea - I really dont know that much about
dark matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 10:53:51 AM |
|
|
I dont know if you are familiar with experiments which
produce a
particle and an antiparticle from an empty vacuum.
I think that this suggests that there is structure on the
subquantum
level which is invisible to us, but it does exist. It also ties
into my
ideas about time ceasing to exist at the quantum scale - etc
etc.
Dark matter could be a result of this unseen structure on the
subquantum
level. It would certainly be invisible, except possibly for
some very
subtle, almost imperceptible effects.
Maybe it's nonsense, maybe it's really a good explanation of
dark matter.
Who knows.
Why would this "structure" be concentrated near the rims of
spiral galaxies?
If c_gravity is = c, then temporary particles will NOT interact
in the way that is required. Additionally, too much gamma would
be incidentally produced by intruding radiation deflecting one of
the pair...
David A. Smith
I honestly have no idea whatsoever. But it does seem to be a plausible
argument. Most physicists would agree that the quantum world is brimming
with "structure" of some kind. I also agree that this makes sense, and
seems
to be coroborated by observations.
I think that if I were cornered on this, I would say that the quantum
world
is a boundary condition, a boundary of scale. There is lots of structure
down there, but it doesent exist relative to an observer - and yet it is
indeed present in an absolute sense. It really does exist. So, it is
invisible, but it is there.
There may be a very small measurable effect when you are looking at cubic
light years of space. Perhaps this would explain why there is a measurable
force which appears to come from "nowhere". It really does come from
nowhere, because "nowhere" is a "somewhere" which really does exist !!
Haaaaaa.
Structures in the 3rd dimension are fluctuating just as anything else we
observe in the non-quantum world. Somehow, these structures poke their
head
just barely above water - peeking their heads back into the 4th
dimension -
just partially - and only very briefly - and it becomes a sort of
background
energy which is invisible because it is %99.999 nonexistent - and yet can
be
measured if you have enough of it.
This may be a very hairbrained idea - I really dont know that much about
dark matter.
Of course - it is much easier to say such a thing than it is to prove it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 10:08:53 AM |
|
|
Dear Lefty:
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:sIednbN11NGjK9vfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in
message news:Nkr1e.6322$Mt5.5740@fed1read01...
Dear Lefty:
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:zYmdnQ213eWWqNvfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
...
I dont know if you are familiar with experiments
which produce a particle and an antiparticle
from an empty vacuum.
I think that this suggests that there is
structure on the subquantum level which is
invisible to us, but it does exist. It also ties
into my ideas about time ceasing to exist
at the quantum scale - etc
etc.
Dark matter could be a result of this unseen
structure on the subquantum level. It would
certainly be invisible, except possibly for
some very subtle, almost imperceptible effects.
Maybe it's nonsense, maybe it's really a
good explanation of dark matter.
Who knows.
Why would this "structure" be concentrated
near the rims of spiral galaxies?
If c_gravity is = c, then temporary particles
will NOT interact in the way that is required.
Additionally, too much gamma would be
incidentally produced by intruding radiation
deflecting one of the pair...
I honestly have no idea whatsoever. But it does
seem to be a plausible argument.
It is not plausible. The considered opinion seems to hover
around either NO effect, or the effect of Dark Energy.
Most physicists would agree that the quantum
world is brimming with "structure" of some kind.
But there is no reason to believe that the structure is other
than uniformly distributed.
I also agree that this makes sense, and seems
to be coroborated by observations.
Not really.
I think that if I were cornered on this, I would say
that the quantum world is a boundary condition, a
boundary of scale. There is lots of structure down
there, but it doesent exist relative to an observer -
and yet it is indeed present in an absolute sense.
It really does exist. So, it is invisible, but it is
there.
The quantum world is the REAL world. Us creatures that are
constructed of statistical behavior are illusory.
There may be a very small measurable effect
when you are looking at cubic light years of space.
Yes, possibly Dark Energy, aka repulsion. NOT attraction, which
Dark Matter is proposed to provide.
Perhaps this would explain why there is a
measurable force which appears to come from
"nowhere". It really does come from nowhere,
because "nowhere" is a "somewhere" which
really does exist !! Haaaaaa.
Have some more schnaaps.
Structures in the 3rd dimension are fluctuating
just as anything else we observe in the
non-quantum world. Somehow, these structures
poke their head just barely above water - peeking
their heads back into the 4th dimension - just
partially - and only very briefly - and it becomes
a sort of background energy which is invisible
because it is %99.999 nonexistent - and yet
can be measured if you have enough of it.
IMHO more likely, this zero point behavior is simply a production
of nearby matter. Random fluctuations in the statistical cloud
we call a Universe. Distance and time don't exist at that level,
so having an entire Universe as a scratch-pad to some
"altercation" at the quantum level is a non issue.
This may be a very hairbrained idea - I really dont
know that much about dark matter.
It only interacts with our Universe via gravity... hence the name
"Dark". Quantum short-lived particles, are frequently charged
particles, which will interact with light. So they do not
qualify as Dark Matter.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 08:42:15 PM |
|
|
Perhaps this would explain why there is a
measurable force which appears to come from
"nowhere". It really does come from nowhere,
because "nowhere" is a "somewhere" which
really does exist !! Haaaaaa.
Have some more schnaaps.
I have to be honest - I really enjoy these informal conversations. Much of
what we kick around may be wrong - but for every chalkboard there are
probably 3 or 4 erasers.
Structures in the 3rd dimension are fluctuating
just as anything else we observe in the
non-quantum world. Somehow, these structures
poke their head just barely above water - peeking
their heads back into the 4th dimension - just
partially - and only very briefly - and it becomes
a sort of background energy which is invisible
because it is %99.999 nonexistent - and yet
can be measured if you have enough of it.
IMHO more likely, this zero point behavior is simply a production
of nearby matter. Random fluctuations in the statistical cloud
we call a Universe. Distance and time don't exist at that level,
so having an entire Universe as a scratch-pad to some
"altercation" at the quantum level is a non issue.
This may be a very hairbrained idea - I really dont
know that much about dark matter.
It only interacts with our Universe via gravity... hence the name
"Dark". Quantum short-lived particles, are frequently charged
particles, which will interact with light. So they do not
qualify as Dark Matter.
David A. Smith
I still think that quantum weirdness is a boundary problem, a boundary of
scale. A boundary of proportions or size, and the effects observed are
relavistic. There must be something similar happening on the astronomical
scale, something weird. Some weird boundary related weirdness - I think that
I had thought of such a thing a long time ago - but cant remember it right
now. I'll try to remember what it was.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 10:15:27 AM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
-Thanks, Dan, for responding to Lefty's insistence that s-t is a real
-substance. However, my model claims that space is comprised of Dark
-Matter and as such it could be defined as an invisible substance,
-although I am not sure that would be entirely correct either. Space
-for me is made up of invisible matter which came out of the BB and
-which defines the boundaries of our universe in absolute space.
-
-TomGee
You know Tom, you gave me an idea talking about dark matter.
I dont know if you are familiar with experiments which produce a
particle and an antiparticle from an empty vacuum.
I think that this suggests that there is structure on the
subquantum
level which is invisible to us, but it does exist. It also ties into
my
ideas about time ceasing to exist at the quantum scale - etc etc.
Dark matter could be a result of this unseen structure on the
subquantum
level. It would certainly be invisible, except possibly for some very
subtle, almost imperceptible effects.
Maybe it's nonsense, maybe it's really a good explanation of dark
matter.
Who knows.
I gave you that idea, Lefty, from my model which claims that space is a
medium for visible and Dark matter. We could call invisible matter a
"substructure" of space and that would not be inconsistent with its
role as a medium. Physicists call it the quantum vacuum to avoid
having to use the word "invisible" as that sounds oh so beneath their
social levels.
Your term "subquantum level" is oxymoronic wrt the definitions of
"quantum". Re-read my posts where I refer to Dark Matter as being a
sea of particles comprising the space which defines our universe and
which resolves the paradox of the duality of light in the process of
creating light. Your brain is working properly - don't fix anything!
Ride with your "revelations" and the claims I make in my model, and you
will burst the chains which hold your mind in bondage.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 08:50:02 PM |
|
|
Your term "subquantum level" is oxymoronic wrt the definitions of
"quantum".
According to my hypothesis, that "time ceases to exist relative to an
observer", this implies that there is a subquantum world which really does
exist - but does not exist relative to an observer on our scale.
This is not the accepted view in physics today. Physics has it's own ideas
about time, and I am quite sure that none of them are quite the same as what
I've been stating.
This is because I reign supreme over the world of lizards. I am the Lizard
King. I can do A-ny-thing.
Lefty -
=TIMETRAVELLER=
and Cubiq
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
28 Mar 2005 10:12:22 PM |
|
|
No, Lefty, an oxymoron is where two contradictory terms are used
together. The quantum is the smallest unit so nothing can be smaller
and thus there can be no sub-quantum objects.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
29 Mar 2005 12:46:08 AM |
|
|
No, Lefty, an oxymoron is where two contradictory terms are used
together. The quantum is the smallest unit so nothing can be smaller
and thus there can be no sub-quantum objects.
TomGee
You misunderstand.
Yes, Planck Length and Planck Time are the smallest things, also Planck
Frequency. These are the smallest possible things.
But, the universe is not closed. It is simultaneously open and closed.
The quantum scale is a boundary condition - and it is a relativistic
phenomenon.
There are things which are smaller - however, they do not exist >relative<
to you and I. Yet, they do exist in an absolute sense. Existence is
relative. The universe is both open and closed.
I am not pulling your leg. This is what's happening.
You are not thinking of time the right way. It is just a dimension, and it
can cease to exist relative to an observer. Then, everything just falls into
place.
Lefty-
=TIMETRAVELLER=
Lord Lizardmensch
and Cubiq
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
26 Mar 2005 06:30:27 PM |
|
|
Lefty, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but spacetime is
not a substance. The stuff in front of you is a substance. It has
nothing to do with s-t. You like the word so you use it when you mean
space. When you use it like that, it becomes real to you. "S-t" and
"space and time" do not mean the same thing. You cannot use one to
mean the other. They have distinctly different meanings. S-t is not a
dimension of our universe, it is a math construct we use to locate
imaginary objects on a diagram where we chart imaginary motions as
compared with with an imaginary passage of time. Repeat 3 times
without taking a breath: "S-T is Not real!, it is Not a substance, it
is Not a real place".
You are not allowed in physics to call things whatever you wish at your
convenience. Mebbe you can do that in Philosophy, I don't know, but
not here.
TomGee
If my claim that time passes dependent upon object' s states of motion,
s-t will be shown in error since it does not distinguish between SR's
varying time rates in our imaginary calculations. One more
contradiction in AE Relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
26 Mar 2005 09:22:52 PM |
|
|
Lefty, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but spacetime is
not a substance. The stuff in front of you is a substance. It has
nothing to do with s-t. You like the word so you use it when you mean
space. When you use it like that, it becomes real to you. "S-t" and
"space and time" do not mean the same thing. You cannot use one to
mean the other. They have distinctly different meanings. S-t is not a
dimension of our universe, it is a math construct we use to locate
imaginary objects on a diagram where we chart imaginary motions as
compared with with an imaginary passage of time. Repeat 3 times
without taking a breath: "S-T is Not real!, it is Not a substance, it
is Not a real place".
The above is completely false. See the very bottom of this for proof.
Call it what you want. I dont really care what name you give it. The point
is very simple. Regardless if Minkowski spacetmie is a mathematical space,
or a real physical object is irrelevant to me. My usage of the word
spacetime is in reference to the real stuff, and not the abstract stuff.
I'm not going to quibble about semantics. Minkowski spacetime is the closest
thing which has ever been devised to describe the stuff which empty space is
made of. Personally, I dont care if you consider it abstract or real.
You are not allowed in physics to call things whatever you wish at your
convenience. Mebbe you can do that in Philosophy, I don't know, but
not here.
Proof that you are incorrect -
-----------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Is spacetime quantized?
Current theory is focused on the nature of spacetime at the Planck scale.
Loop quantum gravity, string theory, and black hole thermodynamics all
predict a quantized spacetime with agreement on the order of magnitude. Loop
quantum gravity even makes precise predictions about the geometry of
spacetime at the Planck scale.
-----------------------------------------
Tom.
Please tell me why physicists would consider whether spacetime is
quantized if they are thinking of it as an absrtaction !!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
26 Mar 2005 09:14:18 PM |
|
|
I do not recall calling s-t an abstraction, although I well may have.
If I did, I did not mean to do that. Your reference above does not
call it an abstraction either.
Math constructs are not abstractions in the sense that they are
generalized concepts taken from specific concrete examples of events.
Math constructs are based on the strict science of mathematics, but
they are not limited to specific concrete examples because they can
also be applied to imaginary examples. Thus, whether or not the math
is correct does not determine the relationship of it to reality, since
it can be correct when applied to purely imaginary events.
Mathematics is "the study of... the relationships among numbers,
shapes, and quantities. It uses signs, symbols, and proofs and includes
arithmetic, algebra, calculus, geometry, and trigonometry."
Microsoft=AE Encarta=AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Mathematics does not claim to be or to represent reality. It is used
in the scientific method as a tool for making calculations and as such
it tries to describe reality, but since it is not based on empirical
research per se, it cannot be said that it does that successfully in
all cases. AE proved mathematically that the universe is static, and
was forced to admit that was not true after all.
I have read where some believe he erred because he was partial to it
being static and thus, probably subconsciously, he made his wish come
true. I have asked and not yet received a quote from AE that he
claimed specifically that space and time exist in an interdependent
relationship. If he so believed that, why did he not say so? He seems
to have very carefully left out such a claim, and only inferring it in
all his works.
Nevertheless, everyone seems to have accepted such a claim without
questioning whether that relationship can be true. Except me, of
course. I have shown where the two are interdependent wrt each other,
but no one will admit to that even though they have no logical argument
nor reasonable statements as to why I am wrong.
Mathematician Hermann Weyl once confessed, "My work has always tried
to unite the true with the beautiful and when I had to choose one or
the other, I usually chose the beautiful."
Microsoft =AE Encarta =AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
As to why physicists would ponder whether s-t can be quantized, i.e,
expressed in terms of quantum numbers or divided into discrete discrete
increments by applying the rules of qm, I can only suggest you ask
them. Everyone in the world came to believe in AE's math which proved
the universe static, that is, until Hubble came along and then everyone
recanted too along with AE.
We can see such examples all along the historical timeline of science,
probably way before the Inquisition. So tell me, why is it so hard for
you to consider my claims as better than what is available when you can
offer nothing which overthrows them?
TomGee
Microsoft=AE Encarta=AE Reference Library 2005. =A9 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
26 Mar 2005 11:33:01 PM |
|
|
-Math constructs are not abstractions in the sense that they are
-generalized concepts taken from specific concrete examples of events.
-Math constructs are based on the strict science of mathematics, but
-they are not limited to specific concrete examples because they can
-also be applied to imaginary examples. Thus, whether or not the math
-is correct does not determine the relationship of it to reality, since
-it can be correct when applied to purely imaginary events.
- ................
I wont argue with anything you said here Tom -
My main bone of contention is not with any person specifically, but the
state of the art. Hilbert believed that Physics could be axiomatized. I also
believe this - in a somewhat modified way.
I dont think that you'll ever get a "formula of all reality", because I
believe that chaos related considerations and other things will make this
utterly impossible forever.
However, I think that axiomatization will ultimately come to physics.
Einstein and Descartes have much in common in terms of their work. Descartes
shows us how to use R2 and R3. Einstein shows us how to use spacetime. One
is real, the other is abstract .
Relativity is perhaps the one gem of physics which comes extremely close to
modelling reality. Relativity is still an abstraction, but much closer to
reality than plotting things in R3.
.
|
|
|
| User: "zzbunker" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 07:42:04 AM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
-Math constructs are not abstractions in the sense that they are
-generalized concepts taken from specific concrete examples of events.
-Math constructs are based on the strict science of mathematics, but
-they are not limited to specific concrete examples because they can
-also be applied to imaginary examples. Thus, whether or not the math
-is correct does not determine the relationship of it to reality, since
-it can be correct when applied to purely imaginary events.
- ................
I wont argue with anything you said here Tom -
My main bone of contention is not with any person specifically, but the
state of the art. Hilbert believed that Physics could be axiomatized. I also
believe this - in a somewhat modified way.
Hilbert believed mathematics could be axiomtized. Goedel
showed that he was wrong.
Einstein showed that Goedel was an Austrian philosopher,
since he like Hilbert believed that space time is like flat,
with four real dimensions, and no other dimensions.
I dont think that you'll ever get a "formula of all reality", because I
believe that chaos related considerations and other things will make this
utterly impossible forever.
But Chaos is already known to be like most things in physics,
100% economics, 100% local, 100% computable, and 100% patented by
by idiots living in San Franciso Earthquake fault lines.
However, I think that axiomatization will ultimately come to physics.
Einstein and Descartes have much in common in terms of their work. Descartes
shows us how to use R2 and R3. Einstein shows us how to use spacetime. One
is real, the other is abstract .
Relativity is perhaps the one gem of physics which comes extremely close to
modelling reality. Relativity is still an abstraction, but much closer to
reality than plotting things in R3.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 10:51:22 AM |
|
|
Hilbert believed mathematics could be axiomtized. Goedel
showed that he was wrong.
I dont think that a closed "solution to physics" will ever be devised. This
would be the equivalent of a "formula of all truths". It simply cannot be
done.
But we can certainly get closer to the truth than we are at this time. Set
theoretic understanding of spacetime is a step forward, and it's
falsifiable. Could be very useful if one ever desires to "Beam me up -
Scottie!".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
26 Mar 2005 05:29:01 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Lefty wrote:
So what you're saying, Lefty, is that if we can't see it, it
don't
exist, eh? Unless we are to hear a tree fall in the forest, it
makes
no sound, eh? The Sun rises every morning only when we are there
awake
enough to see it come up, eh? So it makes perfect sense to you,
eh?
I say it's nonsense.
TomGee
What I'm saying is that there are certainly things which do not
exist
relative to you and I, yet they do exist. Existence is relative,
because
time ceases to exist relative to an observer on the quantum scale.
No, not so. Existentialism is in the realm of Philosopy, which is on
another planet wrt science. It does not even fit into Theoretical
Physics, which is not restricted to empirical evidence, since its
tenets are unfalsifiable. That was my point in my post, that as far
as
science goes, philosophy is nonsense.
You just made a philosophical value judgment. You presupposed that
philosophy has NO use in science. This is clearly wrong since science
is founded on a particular set of viewpoints that are arbitrary.
Science did not have to be founded on conventionalism or
intersubjectivity, but it was. There is no unique way to set up an
empirical study. And the decisions by which the choices are made are
philosophically determined, unless the choices are chosen randomly.
You misunderstand the nature of the relationship of philosophy to
science. Is science itself scientifically falsifiable? Depending on how
you look at it, the answer is either 'no' or the question is
meaningless. Where the heck do you think science came from?
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
26 Mar 2005 08:05:55 PM |
|
|
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1111879741.851253.256560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
TomGee wrote:
Lefty wrote:
So what you're saying, Lefty, is that if we can't see it, it
don't
exist, eh? Unless we are to hear a tree fall in the forest, it
makes
no sound, eh? The Sun rises every morning only when we are there
awake
enough to see it come up, eh? So it makes perfect sense to you,
eh?
I say it's nonsense.
TomGee
What I'm saying is that there are certainly things which do not
exist
relative to you and I, yet they do exist. Existence is relative,
because
time ceases to exist relative to an observer on the quantum scale.
No, not so. Existentialism is in the realm of Philosopy, which is on
another planet wrt science. It does not even fit into Theoretical
Physics, which is not restricted to empirical evidence, since its
tenets are unfalsifiable. That was my point in my post, that as far
as
science goes, philosophy is nonsense.
You just made a philosophical value judgment. You presupposed that
philosophy has NO use in science. This is clearly wrong since science
is founded on a particular set of viewpoints that are arbitrary.
Science did not have to be founded on conventionalism or
intersubjectivity, but it was. There is no unique way to set up an
empirical study. And the decisions by which the choices are made are
philosophically determined, unless the choices are chosen randomly.
You misunderstand the nature of the relationship of philosophy to
science. Is science itself scientifically falsifiable? Depending on how
you look at it, the answer is either 'no' or the question is
meaningless. Where the heck do you think science came from?
Patrick
I've heard certain mathematicians characterize philosophy as garbage. I'm
quite certain that this is not a universally held belief among scientists,
but it certainly seems validated by the reams of nonsense which are retained
by philosophers. I am not really fond of philosophy myself - but at present
there is no way to avoid it in physical science.
Science has always been deformed by politics, religion, money, and other
factors. But even if you could separate yourself completely from these
influences, ultimately you will reach a point where you simply cannot
explain what you observe. It is then that you extend your line of reasoning
by using speculation. All sciences must eventually do this. That speculation
will always be subject to your philosophical views, and our understanding of
QM has been stalled because of our philosophical understanding of time.
Until now.
Philosophy even infects mathematics. Consider this -
A disc in R2 is certainly 2 dimensional. Consider this same disc in R3.
Is it 2 dimensional, or 3 dimensional ? The answer to this is completely
subjective, a matter of pure opinion. It boils down to philosophy - even in
mathematics. Such a simple question. No easy answer. It is Agonizingly
Stupid.
Mathematicians can try to deny it - but they still cannot avoid it. They
cannot gurantee that logic is invariant throughout the universe. This is
always taken for granted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
27 Mar 2005 01:05:44 AM |
|
|
Lets assume that what I've been saying is correct for a moment. What
predictions can be made based on these ideas ?
By hypothesis:
1) Time ceases to exist on the quantum level, relative to an observer.
2) The 4th dimension is reduced to the 3rd dimension, relative to an
observer.
3) QM weirdness is just a boundary phenomenon relating to relative sizes or
scales.
4) Anything which happens in 3rd dimension must be instantaneous because
time does not exist in 3D.
5) Time(dimension) can mimic length(dimension) on the quantum scale,
relative to an observer.
6) Spacetime must be composed of 3D and 4D points, and this must have an
effect on continuity relative to an observer.
7) bla bla bla
Assuming these things are true, it should be possible to make a prediction
which could be tested in the lab.
Homework assignment.
1a) Devise a prediction. b) Revolutionize physics.
Lefty-
=TIMETRAVELLER=
and Cubiq
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ad" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
29 Mar 2005 02:46:07 AM |
|
|
a643155 wrote:
Hi,
I'm wondering if anyone could give an example of a physical event
that involves time, but doesn't involve space (spacial dimension,
spacial coordinates, etc.) in any way, even behind the scene, free of
spacial-motional causality, so to speak. E.g. a change of electrical
charge of an object which rests in space (relative to the observer,
just to make my point), is nevertheless caused by motion of electrons,
or a change of temperature is caused by motion of atoms, etc.
The way we measure time also does seem to always involve spacial
motion, in one way or another -- we measure (or perceive, in wider
sense) it by our pace, by our heart rate, by motion of the sun, by the
frequency of light emitted during transition of electrons from one
energy state to another, which is accompanied by a spacial movement of
electrons "down" towards the nucleus, and so on. Can we measure time
without bringing in spacial changes?
I guess this question is very much related to the very definition of
motion. In other words, is there such a thing as non-spacial motion, a
motion in wider sense (a "change", perhaps), i.e. a truly space-free
change of a physical quantity?
This could also be related to energy transformations -- perhaps an
example of such physical property or entity would be such that the
kinetic energy isn't involved in any way, but I can't come up with such
example.
To go even further, is there such a natural property of time that
could be used to devise an ultimate measuring unit of it (theoretically
speaking of course), without resorting to spacial movements to measure
time? For example, to measure a distance from A to B we don't need to
bring time into the measuring process, but to measure 1 day we would
resort to "a period which earth takes to rotate once around its axis".
This question is perhaps beyond known at the moment, but are there
respectable studies of this subject, or is it at least complete
nonsense?
Thanks,
a.
"For Time makes Space distinct and Space makes Time distinct... Space or
Time, may be regarded as supplying the element of diversity to the
element of identity supplied by the other." - Samuel Alexander "Space,
Time and Deity" [1920] volume 2 p165.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
29 Mar 2005 10:10:00 PM |
|
|
"ad" <infradig-nospambalam@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:kB82e.101$cU3.3745@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
a643155 wrote:
Hi,
I'm wondering if anyone could give an example of a physical event
that involves time, but doesn't involve space (spacial dimension,
spacial coordinates, etc.) in any way, even behind the scene, free of
spacial-motional causality, so to speak. E.g. a change of electrical
charge of an object which rests in space (relative to the observer,
just to make my point), is nevertheless caused by motion of electrons,
or a change of temperature is caused by motion of atoms, etc.
The way we measure time also does seem to always involve spacial
motion, in one way or another -- we measure (or perceive, in wider
sense) it by our pace, by our heart rate, by motion of the sun, by the
frequency of light emitted during transition of electrons from one
energy state to another, which is accompanied by a spacial movement of
electrons "down" towards the nucleus, and so on. Can we measure time
without bringing in spacial changes?
I guess this question is very much related to the very definition of
motion. In other words, is there such a thing as non-spacial motion, a
motion in wider sense (a "change", perhaps), i.e. a truly space-free
change of a physical quantity?
This could also be related to energy transformations -- perhaps an
example of such physical property or entity would be such that the
kinetic energy isn't involved in any way, but I can't come up with such
example.
To go even further, is there such a natural property of time that
could be used to devise an ultimate measuring unit of it (theoretically
speaking of course), without resorting to spacial movements to measure
time? For example, to measure a distance from A to B we don't need to
bring time into the measuring process, but to measure 1 day we would
resort to "a period which earth takes to rotate once around its axis".
This question is perhaps beyond known at the moment, but are there
respectable studies of this subject, or is it at least complete
nonsense?
Thanks,
a.
"For Time makes Space distinct and Space makes Time distinct... Space or
Time, may be regarded as supplying the element of diversity to the
element of identity supplied by the other." - Samuel Alexander "Space,
Time and Deity" [1920] volume 2 p165.
Time does not exist on the quantum scale. The two wavecrests are
therefore NOT separated by time. The wavecrests are separated by DISTANCE,
making this experiment IDENTICAL to the classical double slit.
-------------------------------------------
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/3/1
The latest experiment is radically different because the slits exist in time
not space, and because the interference pattern appears when the number of
electrons at the detector is plotted as a function of their energy rather
than their position on a screen. The work was performed at the Technical
University of Vienna in collaboration with physicists from the Max Born
Institute in Berlin, the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Munich
and the University of Sarajevo.
-------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
