| 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: "Pekka Virtanen" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
02 Apr 2005 03:49:16 AM |
|
|
"a643155" <a643155-news@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<1111628246.103081.104540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
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.
If you are interested in space and time as sunstancies, you could
consider the model of D-theory.
D-theory is the basic theory of a new field of physics called
projective physics. The projective physics is based on the hypothesis,
which defines the structure of the physical space, and the projective
geometry has there a significant role. D-theory contains a model of
cell-structured physical space. The model reveals the backgrounds of
abstractions in the Quantum physics. D-theory explains with common
sense the abstractions such as a probability wave of a particle, the
spin of a particle and the colours of the quarks. It also reveals the
nature of the time.
The model satisfies Lorentz's transformations and Maxwell's equations
and predicts the result of Michelson-Morley's experiment.
The absolute cell-structured space is squared in comparison with the
observer's space. When the absolute 3D-space is the euclidean
3D-surface of a four-dimensional hyperoctahedron, that means, that the
observer will see an "illusion" or the 3D-surface of the Riemann's
hypersphere.
The regular unit cells of the 3D-surface are octahedra and inverted
octahedra called antioctahedra. Together they fill the 3D-space
completely and form there layers and antilayers.
D-theory contains a new four-dimensional atom model. The electrons in
an atom stand outside the 3D-surface in limited reciprocal space and
have their wave-like projections at the 3D-surface. Generally such a
projection replaces the probability wave of a particle. The projection
ratio in cell-structured space is 1/137. The direction of an electron
and an positron is perpendicular to the 3D-surface in even space. The
ether has the same direction and it moves also outside the 3D-surface.
And that all is only a beginning... So take your own copy of D-theory
and familiarize with it and send your comments.
The D-theory is divided into three parts or files.
The introduction:
Introduction
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/dtheory.htm
The files:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/dtheory_1.pdf
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/dtheory_2.pdf
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/dtheory_3.pdf
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/introduction.pdf
and in .ppt format:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/dtheory_1.ppt
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/dtheory_2.ppt
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/dtheory_3.ppt
http://koti.mbnet.fi/mpelt/tekstit/introduction.ppt
Pekka Virtanen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
23 Mar 2005 07:40:52 PM |
|
|
No
.
|
|
|
| User: "a643155" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
23 Mar 2005 07:48:38 PM |
|
|
That was a truly quick answer!
One more related provocative question (but it seems that the
provocative stuff is the most interesting to dig):
If time can only be measured by physical events (and perhaps spacial
events at that), then is time just a consequence of such events, a
reflection of them, a manifestation if you will, but not a "real"
physical property?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 05:05:35 AM |
|
|
A more poignant question is whether there can be space without time.
This belief that there is an absolute space, that 3D length is
invariant, is never justified by its proponents. If such a thing
existed and time was not related to space it would be a weird world
indeed, nothing could change because there would be no difference
between moving and stationary objects and no thought could be known
because at the durationless instant nothing happens.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
23 Mar 2005 08:30:56 PM |
|
|
a643155 wrote:
That was a truly quick answer!
One more related provocative question (but it seems that the
provocative stuff is the most interesting to dig):
If time can only be measured by physical events (and perhaps spacial
events at that), then is time just a consequence of such events, a
reflection of them, a manifestation if you will, but not a "real"
physical property?
Time is what a clock measures. Isolate an empty volume of space in
which there is no time and get back to us. The empty is approachable,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091
http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010055
Phys. Lett. B236 354 (1990)
Phys. Lett. B250 133 (1990)
J Phys A26 2037 (1993)
Andrew Gould (Princeton, Inst. Advanced Study). IASSNS-AST-90-25
the time is another matter.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 12:21:04 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
a643155 wrote:
That was a truly quick answer!
SNIP
Time is what a clock measures. Isolate an empty volume of space in
which there is no time and get back to us. The empty is
approachable,
How about if you isolate an empty volume of space in which there is
time and get back to us?
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 01:01:43 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
a643155 wrote:
That was a truly quick answer!
SNIP
Time is what a clock measures. Isolate an empty volume of space in
which there is no time and get back to us. The empty is
approachable,
How about if you isolate an empty volume of space in which there is
time and get back to us?
Sure. There's a region of space 1 centimeter-cubed between Uranus and
Neptune that had no matter in it between 12:04 and 12:05 eastern
standard time today.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 09:20:16 AM |
|
|
a643155 wrote:
That was a truly quick answer!
One more related provocative question (but it seems that the
provocative stuff is the most interesting to dig):
If time can only be measured by physical events (and perhaps spacial
events at that), then is time just a consequence of such events, a
reflection of them, a manifestation if you will, but not a "real"
physical property?
I firmly believe this is a boondoggle.
I could have posed the same question about 3-dimensional space, asking:
Is there any physical event that can be said to occur only in one space
dimension, without any physical processes or objects or substrates
occupying the other two space dimensions at all?
The answer to this would have also been "no".
However, that does not mean that one space dimension is not real, and
that it is solely a manifestation of objects living in the other two
dimensions. If so, which of the three space dimensions would you like
to say is the artifact, the one that's not real?
Time is a dimension of spacetime. It has the same reality as the other
three dimensions. If you suspect the reality of time, ask yourself the
same question about any of the other dimensions and see if it makes
sense.
Now, if you think time is *different* than the other space dimensions
and *that's* what sets it apart, then you'd better start figuring out
*exactly* how it is different.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "a643155" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 12:09:48 PM |
|
|
I firmly believe this is a boondoggle.
I'd not say so. Considering the continuing confusion on this subject, a
clear definition or understanding what is time is still elusive.
In my opinion, time is different from space in several aspects:
1. Time has direction, space is not.
2. Time is universally applicable, the space is not. One can always
take d<something> / dt, and it would always make sense as a "rate of
change", whereas we can't say this for spacial derivative of any entity
or quantity.
3. In a imaginable 4D world (3D+T), an event is uniquely represented by
space+time coordinates, but: to move a stationary object in space one
needs to exert a force, to move the same object in time only there is
no need for external force -- the object is "moving" in time all by
itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 12:59:14 PM |
|
|
a643155 wrote:
I firmly believe this is a boondoggle.
I'd not say so. Considering the continuing confusion on this subject,
a
clear definition or understanding what is time is still elusive.
In my opinion, time is different from space in several aspects:
Thank you for your questions. They are to the point. I'll do my best to
answer not too technically.
1. Time has direction, space is not.
This is actually a deep point, often referred to as the "arrow" of
time. Time actually does not have a sense (direction) in spacetime, but
*causality* does. Causality is a condition that is imposed upon the
spacetime but not inherent to spacetime, as far as I know. This is the
one area where I think our understanding is not as clean as it could
be. As far as I know, it has more to do with the 2nd law of
thermodynamics than it does with relativity, especially if the bridge
is made between the connections [entropy <-> information] and [light
<-> information-transfer].
Entropy and thermodynamics probably plays a deeper role in relativity
than we had imagined. Google "black hole entropy" and "holographic
universe" for more information, or read Hawking's or Smolin's recent
books.
2. Time is universally applicable, the space is not. One can always
take d<something> / dt, and it would always make sense as a "rate of
change", whereas we can't say this for spacial derivative of any
entity
or quantity.
This is not true. A gradient is precisely a derivative with respect to
space, and indeed, deriving a force from a potential is a good example
of that "rate of change". (In fact, because there is more than one
spatial dimension, there are at least three different kinds of spatial
derivatives, which you can look up under the names "gradient",
"divergence", and "curl".)
3. In a imaginable 4D world (3D+T), an event is uniquely represented
by
space+time coordinates, but: to move a stationary object in space one
needs to exert a force, to move the same object in time only there is
no need for external force -- the object is "moving" in time all by
itself.
Well, first of all, note that you said that a force is required to
*move* a *stationary* object; that is, a force is required to *change*
the motion of an object. It is *not* true that a force is required for
an object to be in motion. (This is not a claim of relativity; it's
Newton's first law.) Indeed, which objects are moving and which ones
are stationary are completely dependent on the choice of inertial
reference frame. In this sense, all objects are in motion -- through
time only or through space and time being an artifact of reference
frame only. Indeed, in spacetime, *all* objects move with speed 1 along
their world-lines always. What a force does is, inside a set inertial
frame, to change the *orientation* of that motion through spacetime to
be more spacelike or more timelike.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "a643155" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 01:19:46 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the answers PD, you have some robust reasoning capabilities;
IMO you're right but incomplete [for reasons beyond current level of
scientific knowledge I imagine] on q1, absolutely right on q2 (my bad),
wrong on q3 (I didn't mean that we allow to change a frame of
reference).
Causality/entropy/information is obviously a subject of ultimate
importance, seeming to be one of the reasons pushing various scientists
at the end of their career (when they give up, basically) to come up to
inner peace in the form of acceptance of one or another form of
idealistic view on the world, such as religion, purely mathematical
source of universe, mind-centric universe, etc. -- where science
reaches its limits, we still have beliefs to justify the Universe and
ourselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 02:06:37 PM |
|
|
a643155 wrote:
Thanks for the answers PD, you have some robust reasoning
capabilities;
Reasoning capabilities have nothing to do with it. I've just worked
hard to understand some of this stuff. You are perhaps pondering doing
the same.
IMO you're right but incomplete [for reasons beyond current level of
scientific knowledge I imagine] on q1, absolutely right on q2 (my
bad),
wrong on q3 (I didn't mean that we allow to change a frame of
reference).
Well, you're entitled to YO. On point (3), this is a fundamental tenet
of physics, that laws of physics do not depend on choice of inertial
reference frame. Thus, any difference that is attributed to a change in
reference frame can have nothing to do with laws of physics.
Causality/entropy/information is obviously a subject of ultimate
importance, seeming to be one of the reasons pushing various
scientists
at the end of their career (when they give up, basically)
I don't know about that. Sometimes it takes several generations for
people to get a clear understanding of things. Heck, it only took 3000
years for people to figure out atoms! Handing over the reins is not
tantamount to giving up.
to come up to
inner peace in the form of acceptance of one or another form of
idealistic view on the world, such as religion, purely mathematical
source of universe, mind-centric universe, etc. -- where science
reaches its limits, we still have beliefs to justify the Universe and
ourselves.
Don't confuse Causality with Purpose. Causality can be described
objectively in physics, without resorting to spiritual notions.
Purpose, however, is something completely different...
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
23 Mar 2005 08:31:37 PM |
|
|
a643155 wrote:
That was a truly quick answer!
One more related provocative question (but it seems that the
provocative stuff is the most interesting to dig):
If time can only be measured by physical events (and perhaps spacial
events at that), then is time just a consequence of such events, a
reflection of them, a manifestation if you will, but not a "real"
physical property?
Time and space are unified yet different.
There is difference in unification.
In order to measure something you must first have that quality
that's being measured.
Time is in a clock? a clock is in time?
What about a clock is time if you have to be what you measure?
So material bodies are also time.
Time is a property of matter.
But it is also surrounding matter in space-time.
Mitch -- Gravity is a Continuum --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
23 Mar 2005 10:14:41 PM |
|
|
On 23 Mar 2005 17:37:26 -0800, "a643155" <a643155-news@yahoo.ca>
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,
Definitely time is separate from the space we know. It is a fourth
dimension and our universe is moving through it at the speed of light.
It's was Einstein expressed as hoping for, but in his consorting with
mathematicians he got caught up in 4D hyperbolic space.
See some of my papers at http://www.dualspace.net for an expanded
version of all this. It's a new view of the universe.
Here is a note I copied in sci.phys.relativity:
Mikeinsp@hotmail.com 3/18/05 4:448P.M wrote:
"I was under the impression that an object at rest relative to us and
under no acceleration is moving at the speed of light through the time
dimension of spacetime. When some of that motion is transfered to one
of the spacial dimensions (it starts moving), it is moving slower
through the time dimension (its clock will slow down) but it is still
moving at the speed of light. As far as I'm aware, this view
translates into the time dilation equations of special relativy.
Is this incorrect? Because if it is, I've been reading the wrong
books!
2 A reference for this is "The Elegant Universe." On page 50:
"Einstein proclaimed that all object in the universe are always
travelling through spacetime at one fixed speed-that of light...The
speed of an object through space is thus merely a reflection of how
much motion through time is diverted...the maximum speed through space
occurs is all of an objects motion through time is diverted to motion
through space. The occurs when all of its previous light-speed motion
through time is diverted to light-speed motion through space."
You see Einstein thought the same way.
John Polasek
Mr. Dual Space
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "a643155" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 11:23:45 AM |
|
|
It is a fourth dimension and our universe is moving through it at
the speed of light.
Speed (of light or of anything else) is a derivative. If fourth
dimension is a spacial one through which we zoom with the speed of
light, then what is speed exactly -- does this mean that there are 4
spacial dimension + time once again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 12:33:59 PM |
|
|
Whoa! Excellent question, a, let's see how our experts respond to that
one.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 05:58:05 PM |
|
|
An old one, Eddington amongst others proposed a universe with 5
extensive dimensions. De Sitter space-time is the cosmological 5D
model. I think that according to GTR a de Sitter space time is
consistent with an empty universe.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 01:07:11 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
Whoa! Excellent question, a, let's see how our experts respond to
that
one.
TomGee
And the fact that you can't answer it indicates that you have no
understanding of relativity, despite your repeated claims that you do.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
28 Mar 2005 10:02:16 PM |
|
|
Well, PD doesn't know the answer to that, but I do, so I guess he has
all the understanding of relativity and I don't.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
28 Mar 2005 10:03:40 PM |
|
|
Well, PD doesn't know the answer to that, but I do, so I guess he has
all the understanding of relativity and I don't.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
28 Mar 2005 10:12:16 PM |
|
|
Well, PD doesn't know the answer to that, but I do, so I guess he has
all the understanding of relativity and I don't.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 01:05:49 PM |
|
|
a643155 wrote:
It is a fourth dimension and our universe is moving through it at
the speed of light.
Speed (of light or of anything else) is a derivative. If fourth
dimension is a spacial one through which we zoom with the speed of
light, then what is speed exactly -- does this mean that there are 4
spacial dimension + time once again?
No. If you'd like, speed is the reciprocal of the slope of the
worldline through spacetime, where time is on the "vertical" axis when
computing the slope. Note that an object moves *along* the worldline at
rate 1, but this has nothing to do with the conventional "speed" as
classically defined.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 12:46:53 AM |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
Definitely time is separate from the space we know. It is a fourth
dimension and our universe is moving through it at the speed of
light.
No. It is only doing that in the s-t continuum, but in our universe,
which is real compared to AE's imaginary s-t, objects move through time
at time rates set by our states of motion.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 05:09:19 AM |
|
|
Both Hermann Weyl and Eddington considered that only the conscious
observer experiences time as a succession of events. For them
space-time is an existent continuum.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 09:52:19 AM |
|
|
Alex wrote:
Both Hermann Weyl and Eddington considered that only the conscious
observer experiences time as a succession of events. For them
space-time is an existent continuum.
Yes, but both were well-known mathematicians and Eddington was a noted
philosopher as well. Theoretical Physics was perfect for them because
they did not have to deal with the restrictions of reality.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "a643155" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 11:27:42 AM |
|
|
Time has direction, whereas space does not. What did the ymean exactly
by "existent"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 12:29:22 PM |
|
|
I think, a, they meant that it exists for real as a physical place,
which of course it does not. But I could be wrong, they may have meant
something else. Who knows?
S-t exists like 2+2=4 exists, in our minds only as math constructs. It
is charts and diagrams with time and distance quantities, with light
cones and world lines, all imaginary, like algebra and geometry are
imaginary math constructs.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 01:26:30 PM |
|
|
Please explain how a 3D physical place could exist where the things
within it have no extension in time. How do you picture them existing
if they exist for no time at all?
I am puzzled by your separation of the mind and the physical; things in
the mind are arranged vertically and horizontally and have durations
like 'physical things'. These things in the mind are not maths
constructs so there seems to be a space-time of the mind even if there
is not a space-time in the inferred physical world. Surely Descartes
could be right and even though the physical might be of unkown origin
the relations within mental data pertaining to what is labelled
physical constitute a legitimate pursuit called science.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
24 Mar 2005 08:32:45 PM |
|
|
Alex wrote:
Please explain how a 3D physical place could exist where the things
within it have no extension in time. How do you picture them existing
if they exist for no time at all?
Assuming you are speaking to me, I do not picture that scenario at all,
and if I gave that impression, I apologize. We live in a spatial
universe of 3 dimensions plus one more of time, which is not a spatial
dimension. All visible matter has the property of time. Nothing we
cannot see has the property of time. We cannot see space; we can only
see through it. We cannot see light; we can only see through it. Any
object we can observe has the property of time. We cannot see Dark
Matter, which my model contends makes up the space of our universe. We
know about it due to its effects on visible matter.
Thus, we can picture something existing without time, but that is only
our imagination at play. Since Dark Matter exists, however, we know
there are things in the universe which we cannot see directly, but we
know that is simply an evolutionary function which was left out since
we did not need it.
I am puzzled by your separation of the mind and the physical; things
in
the mind are arranged vertically and horizontally and have durations
like 'physical things'.
Yes, I agree, but note that they are "like" physical things while not
actually being physical things. Simply put, that is my whole point.
These things in the mind are not maths
constructs so there seems to be a space-time of the mind even if
there
is not a space-time in the inferred physical world.
Yes, I agree completely.
Surely Descartes
could be right and even though the physical might be of unkown origin
the relations within mental data pertaining to what is labelled
physical constitute a legitimate pursuit called science.
"Cogito, ergo sum"? Yes, I have no quarrel with that, nor with your
feeling that the imaginations produced by our minds are valuable to us
in our pursuit of science. Nothing I have said was meant to give an
impression that math constructs are worthless. Indeed, I will be first
in line to defend their great utility to us. It is only when we cannot
distinguish between the imaginary and the real that I feel compelled to
put in my 2cents.
TomGee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex" |
|
| Title: Re: Can time be separated from space? |
25 Mar 2005 04:46:02 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote: "All visible matter has the property of time. Nothing we
cannot see has the property of time"
By visible matter do you mean an entity that interacts with some other
entity in such a way as to produce a data flow to a measuring
instrument and hence to an observer (allowing the eye as an
instrument)? If you agree, how does the property of time differ from
the property of spatial length according to this definition - surely
spatial length is only observed using the same process? If your
proposal, that time is a property of interacting things in the
universe, is true then it must also be true of space.
Time certainly exists otherwise the zero component lemma of four
vectors ("If a 4 vector has a particular one of its four components
zero in all inertial frames then the entire vector must be zero") would
not be true and the double slit experiment in time where an electron
interferes with its own historical self would not occur. You do not
seem to be denying this, rather you are suggesting that time is
special, being a property of matter.
It is interesting that our instruments can reduce the uncertainty in
the position of data carriers to zero, they create a precise 3D model
of the world from a reality where delta E * delta t or delta p * delta
x cannot be less than Plank's constant/4pi. So, according to QM the
material environment is creating a model, classical universe from a QM
universe with more degrees of freedom. The underlying QM universe is
inferred to be more like a continuum in space and time etc. The moment
things move or change occurs our instruments become engaged with the
inferred underlying universe and the readings on our instruments
reflect this.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
