what*if? Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Time is only a "concept". Like Metres or Pounds or Unicorns. Time doesn't "exist" in the Observable Universe but, nonetheless, it is a useful concept. A metre of wood exists only because of the wood. A metre by itself is non-existent...just a concept. An hour only exists because of the physical clock. There is no existence in the Observable Universe of an hour by itself. However, in many mathematical models, time is thought of to not only exist, but be observable. This is highly debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Time is only a "concept". Like Metres or Pounds or Unicorns. Time doesn't "exist" in the Observable Universe but, nonetheless, it is a useful concept. A metre of wood exists only because of the wood. A metre by itself is non-existent...just a concept. An hour only exists because of the physical clock. There is no existence in the Observable Universe of an hour by itself. OK. Metres, pound or seconds (but not unicorns) are just ways of measuring things. Not things in themselves. That seems reasonable. However, in many mathematical models, time is thought of to not only exist, but be observable. This is highly debatable. Can you clarify this? We can obviously measure time and distance so they are real and observable in that sense. What is your objection to the reality or observability time and distance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1x0 Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 Time is only a "concept". Like Metres or Pounds or Unicorns. Time doesn't "exist" in the Observable Universe but, nonetheless, it is a useful concept. A metre of wood exists only because of the wood. A metre by itself is non-existent...just a concept. An hour only exists because of the physical clock. There is no existence in the Observable Universe of an hour by itself. However, in many mathematical models, time is thought of to not only exist, but be observable. This is highly debatable. Time is information about space and other physical objects. The presentation is a concept, I mean we choose how we measure time and might be in other parts of the universe they measure it in a different scale but the the infromation they extract about the physical object is the same. If you are aware of the exact information time provides (you can count it from its origin) and you are aware of the expansion rate of space in different gravitational circumstances and you are aware of the physical properties of an object you can predict its exact position in the system. Heisenberg´s uncerainty works untill we work with infinity. As every larger physical object has it ceratin place in the universe as it is existing in a stabil well defined system with clear properties so the subatomic particles are existing in an exact point in a given moment. The question is are we aware of all information to determine that point of existance? Can we determine the position of a subatomic particle if we are not aware of the precize information the sytem provides for us. Size of the whole system, time of existence, speed of the objcets in different gravitational circumstance (Here I think about the expansion rate of space in low gravitational force like at the origin of space) Schrödingers cat is dead or alive but sure do not exist in two different state. It might be a 50 -50 chance but the cat is dead as soon the reaction happened in the box. I still don´t know at the moment I open the box but the physical reality have happened now matter how uncertain I am. I wonder does electrons around an atom changes throught time? I mean does electrons are stationary or are they waves on what the "positive physical world" is "sliding" on, and the one with the best position collapes around an atom in the moment of observtion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Schrödingers cat is dead or alive but sure do not exist in two different state. It might be a 50 -50 chance but the cat is dead as soon the reaction happened in the box. I still don´t know at the moment I open the box but the physical reality have happened now matter how uncertain I am. We all await your formalism of such physics that explains the behaviors we see in quantum mechanics. Merely asserting it will not suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steinein Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "time and space are modes by which we think, not conditions in which we live." ["space and time can no longer be independent. Rather, they are "converted" into each other in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers."] A couple of Einsteins quotes that should help you to understand what time actually is..... With the energy-mass equivalence joules of energy equal kilograms of mass. (Look it up on Wiki if you want to know the ratio.) With space and time there is also an equivalence, where the ratio is 299792458 meters of distance = 1 second of time...... Once a second of time has converted to space the time component is zero and the distance becomes 299792458 meters, Hence the cosmological speed limit and the reason that anything travelling at the speed of light doesn't experience time. Relativity isn't really difficult to understand, (unless the mathematicians get involved that is.) I find it difficult to believe that Einstein didn't complete the equation e=m x c x c because the finished equation explains the singularity plus cosmic inflation and expansion. It also unifies quantum and relativity theory. The clue is very much in the c x c part of the theory. If you care to give the matter some thought, I would be more than pleased to let you know when you are on the right track. Happy pondering.... "I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1x0 Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 "time and space are modes by which we think, not conditions in which we live." ["space and time can no longer be independent. Rather, they are "converted" into each other in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers."] I would say though that space is a condition we live in as space is a physical entity and time is an information about the current circumstances we exist and it can be information about space time energy or matter. All of those physical entities has an age Space and time is not independent but as so energy matter is not independent from time. Everything has an age. The speed of light is a result of a circumstance which determines this property. In other worlds there is a reason why the speed of light is 299792458 meter/s Hence the cosmological speed limit and the reason that anything travelling at the speed of light doesn't experience time. This is an interesting point. How can we say than that a distant galaxy is 1 billion light years away if we would not be able to set this information to the light travelled with the c. In other words if something traveling with the speed of light does not experiencing time than it is not able to provide that information. Still we are able to get the information out from the observed distant galaxy. The clue is very much in the c x c part of the theory. I agree. I think that Einstein´s equation is actually a ratio between energy matter and space. I think Einstein realized that energy and matter is an observable result of a physical process. My assumption is that c2 stands for the rate of expansion of space in low energy and matter. In other words when the system created no energy and mass were present. The Universe kicked off by the appearance of intelligence with low energy and mass as well as space started to expand with a rate of c2 in correlation with the presented low energy and matter (the limit which determins that the expansion rate of space is c2 and not higher). In other words the presented universe is an evolving balance between the expanding space and the evolving enegy and mass. Everything controlled by the Laws of Nature (which I would call intelligence - not the allmighty but a delicate basic one evolved with the system too) I also assume that intelligence/information were the first in the system as everything we can and can not observe (consciousness) present a certain level of information. Einsteins equation is the rate of evolution from nothing to everything. I think the expansion of space is responsible for the creation and evolution of energy. As well as energy is responsible for space´s rate of expansion although space is always a "step ahead" What is interesting too is that if Einsteins equation is Universal then it means that the first energy presented in the system had mass too. If it is not true as they say photons does not have mass then mass is zero in this equation at the beginning of the system and so we speak about a different mathematical system where e=0*c2 is valid. I assume though that energy has a certain level of mass and the e=mc2 describes that too. Or not? I like pondering and I would be really happy for your oppinion about my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 What is interesting too is that if Einsteins equation is Universal then it means that the first energy presented in the system had mass too. If it is not true as they say photons does not have mass then mass is zero in this equation at the beginning of the system and so we speak about a different mathematical system where e=0*c2 is valid. e = 0 x c2is valid. However, it is also incomplete and only applies to stationary masses. The full equation is e2 = m2c4 + p2c2 (where p is momentum). This is the version that has to be applied to massless particles (e.g. photons) or moving objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1x0 Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 e = 0 x c2is valid. However, it is also incomplete and only applies to stationary masses. The full equation is e2 = m2c4 + p2c2 (where p is momentum). This is the version that has to be applied to massless particles (e.g. photons) or moving objects. Strange if e=0*c2 then with the current mathematical system it would mean e=0 as 0*c2=0. Not? That is why I am poundering the 0*1=1 thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Strange if e=0*c2 then with the current mathematical system it would mean e=0 as 0*c2=0. Not? That is why I am poundering the 0*1=1 thought And that is why I showed you that you are using an incomplete equation. And 0x1=1 is just wrong. Not even wrong: nonsense, gibberish and meaningless. Edited March 25, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steinein Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Quark..... "Please, please. please, do not over-think this problem !" Einsteins equation is the rate of evolution from nothing to everything. I think the expansion of space is responsible for the creation and evolution of energy. As well as energy is responsible for space´s rate of expansion although space is always a "step ahead" your statement above shows that you can think along the right lines, but because the answer to this problem is a very simple one. if you add complexity then "you will not be able to see the forest for the trees !" I am pleased that you understand there is a correlation between space-time and energy.However, the only way you will truly be able to understand our reality, will be when you can work it out for yourself, its not difficult and I will do my best to assist you by offering you clues...... You mention time expanding and becoming space...... "What you need to do, is think about what happens when space condenses into time." Have fun and let me know your conclusion. Edited March 25, 2015 by Steinein -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 ! Moderator Note Steinein This isn't your thread, so please don't hijack it with a different discussion This "guessing game" model of discussion is not really keeping with our format. If you have an idea to discuss, please start a new thread in Speculations and talk about it. Also, "quark" is a user title (based in number of posts), not the member name Please don't respond to this modnote in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HchrisRansford Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) I have just published a popular science book called 'The Far Horizons of Time' with de Gruyter Open at : a link that a Moderator had to remove because we don't allow advertising here to answer this very question - The book is available as a free pdf download at the de Gruyter Open website. I'll be interested in your comments Chris jpeg attachment link removed Edited April 30, 2015 by hypervalent_iodine advertising links removed per Rule 2.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now