Jump to content
DNR

What do our clocks read?

Recommended Posts

Hello everybody.

I am a student of biology. But for the last few years, I have been studying Time. I have started a blog page to share my personal views about Time. Here is the link to my blog. I humbly request you all to see it and post your critical comments.

LINK REMOVED

Thanks.

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

This forum is not here to advertise your blog. If you wish to to discuss something, then discuss it here.

Also, "personal views about time" would not appear to belong in physics. (Moved to Philosophy for the moment.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Forum policy is to post something here and not link to a blog.

However I had a look. I think that you will find interesting conversations here, use the search tool.

Since I have my pet theory (theories) about time, I found your blog well written & interesting. But with nothing new to me.

You might be interested by presentations & books from Etienne Klein (most are in French:().

One interesting point he raises (and you are touching the same question) is the following: you stated (from your blog)

Quote

When we say that time is a requirement for our aging, the statement usually conveys the message that time is a ‘factor’ external to us and independent of us and imposes itself upon us and every other organism to let us grow and ‘age’. And the same message is conveyed when we say that time is a requirement for ‘aging’ of any inanimate object- a house, a mountain, the earth, or the sun. These statements usually make us feel that ‘time’ is something like an invisible power of nature flowing continuously through the universe and causing its components- both inanimate and animate- to age

Etienne Klein raises the question: is time passing by or is "we" that travel through a substract called "time". I cited him in several posts on this Forum

And

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74498-do-we-ever-real-reach-a-moment-in-time/?tab=comments#comment-749014

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64809-what-we-know-about-time/#comments

My opinion is that we "travel" through time, as you said: we are aging. So I guess I agree with you.

 

Edited by michel123456

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir

First of all I express my deepest apology for not visiting the site and not replying to your comment for such a long time. It was due to some personal unavoidable reasons. Sorry, once again.

Then I express my apology for linking my blog with my post as I did not know it is unethical.

Now I sincerely thank you for going through my post and making  such an educating comment. I shall now post my views directly on this page.

I know I am not saying anything new about time. Many people have said the same, including you. But still,  time remains an enigma. The reality of time still swings between 'Timelessness' and 'Time as an entity'. Therefore, I think we should keep on discussing the matter and trying to explain it from different angles.

Regards

Dayalanand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us ask the question, “What does a measuring tape read?” Is there any invisible length in the sky that it measures? Does it make any sense if we say that it is measuring an invisible spatial dimension of space? I think these answers hardly make a good sense. In my view, a more sensible answer will be that a measuring tape first of all reads its own length- its longest spatial extension. It tells that it is a meter long. It also tells that a meter- a man-made unit of length- is this much long. Then, by comparison, it measures the lengths of other objects too. After all, a measuring tape is just like any other object, any other tape; the only difference is that it is graduated, or marked (according to a man-made standard) to read its spatial extension.

Similar explanation can be given for a clock. A clock too is like any other object that gets old every moment- that is, extends in its fourth dimension. Other objects too get old every moment but are generally not marked to measure their extension into their fourth dimension (though there are many that have such markings, like a developing embryo or a beating heart, albeit not very precise). A clock has been marked (according to some man-made standard) to measure and read its extension into its fourth dimension. It seems that, like a measuring tape, it too does not measure any invisible fourth dimension of space, any invisible time. Rather, it measures its extension into its own fourth dimension (its aging). In a simpler term, a clock measures and reads its own aging. Then, by comparison, it reads the aging of other objects.

Now suppose, there is a growing tree, increasing in height (say length) by a meter every year. Is its length (the spatial dimension) responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its length? Certainly, the latter statement is true, not the former. The tree’s growth is responsible for its length (a spatial dimension). The spatial dimension of the tree is thus not the cause but the effect. It is not a requirement but an acquirement.

Now we see that, along with its length, the tree is also gaining ‘age’. Similar question can be asked for its age too. Is age (the fourth dimension) of the tree responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its age? Naturally, its growth is responsible for its age. Thus, age, or the fourth dimension too is not the cause but the effect. Fourth dimension (say, time) is, therefore, not a requirement for aging, but is an acquirement for aging. Time seems to be the fourth dimension of objects, a measurement of their aging.

Thus, in my view, a clock measures its own aging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DNR said:

Let us ask the question, “What does a measuring tape read?” Is there any invisible length in the sky that it measures? Does it make any sense if we say that it is measuring an invisible spatial dimension of space? I think these answers hardly make a good sense. 

Can I move some arbitrary distance in a featureless dimension? You seem to be suggesting I can’t, by invoking the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

 

52 minutes ago, DNR said:

Now we see that, along with its length, the tree is also gaining ‘age’. Similar question can be asked for its age too. Is age (the fourth dimension) of the tree responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its age? Naturally, its growth is responsible for its age. Thus, age, or the fourth dimension too is not the cause but the effect.

In physics, time is not a force that causes things to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DNR said:

Now suppose, there is a growing tree, increasing in height (say length) by a meter every year. Is its length (the spatial dimension) responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its length? Certainly, the latter statement is true, not the former. The tree’s growth is responsible for its length (a spatial dimension). The spatial dimension of the tree is thus not the cause but the effect. It is not a requirement but an acquirement.

Now we see that, along with its length, the tree is also gaining ‘age’. Similar question can be asked for its age too. Is age (the fourth dimension) of the tree responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its age? Naturally, its growth is responsible for its age. Thus, age, or the fourth dimension too is not the cause but the effect. Fourth dimension (say, time) is, therefore, not a requirement for aging, but is an acquirement for aging. Time seems to be the fourth dimension of objects, a measurement of their aging.

 

Although not completely correct in your conclusions, you seem to have stumbled on an important aspect of the difference between space and time and this is a good way to describe it.

The point abut the length of the tree comapred to the length of the metre rul you mentioned earlier is embodied in some theory known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=i6T_Xc-XMY-qUMTZkYgH&q=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&oq=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30l10.648.648..1674...0.0..0.186.186.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.GXAhxkIHwvs&ved=0ahUKEwiPiZnk4MnmAhUPFRQKHcRsBHEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

When comparing an object. either to a measuring stick standard or directly to a coordinate framework itself,  to measure its 'length' you have to have this concept so that you compare both ends of the object measured at the 'same time'.

I know of no corresponding requirement to compare the readings on two clocks in the 'same space', although you may have to adjust (transform) the framework to a common base.

 

So +1 for encouragement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 4:22 PM, swansont said:

Can I move some arbitrary distance in a featureless dimension? You seem to be suggesting I can’t, by invoking the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

 

In physics, time is not a force that causes things to happen.

Many thanks for your comment and sorry for delayed response.  Of course this is my personal argument. But probably there is nothing incredulous. May be I was unable to state my point of view clearly. 

Of course, Time is not a force. I am simply trying to understand what is Time by analysing it from different angles.

Thanks for your comments.

On 12/22/2019 at 5:18 PM, studiot said:

 

Although not completely correct in your conclusions, you seem to have stumbled on an important aspect of the difference between space and time and this is a good way to describe it.

The point abut the length of the tree comapred to the length of the metre rul you mentioned earlier is embodied in some theory known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=i6T_Xc-XMY-qUMTZkYgH&q=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&oq=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30l10.648.648..1674...0.0..0.186.186.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.GXAhxkIHwvs&ved=0ahUKEwiPiZnk4MnmAhUPFRQKHcRsBHEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

When comparing an object. either to a measuring stick standard or directly to a coordinate framework itself,  to measure its 'length' you have to have this concept so that you compare both ends of the object measured at the 'same time'.

I know of no corresponding requirement to compare the readings on two clocks in the 'same space', although you may have to adjust (transform) the framework to a common base.

 

So +1 for encouragement.

Many thanks for the educating comment. I am not a physicist, this is a big handicap for me - I know. To some extent, I understand Relativity of simultaneity.

However, I do think that reading of clocks can be compared only in same space (same height from a body) and same speed. Different heights and different speeds might give different readings from a clock, if I am not wrong.  Anyway, relativity is not an issue here.  I am simply trying to analyse time from different angles, to the extent I can do. I shall be more obliged to learn where I am not correct in my conclusions. Kindly specify.

Thanks and regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually ( to be pedantic to a fault ), what the vast majority of existing clocks read, are the oscillations of a quartz crystal with an applied voltage.
This thread is just a variation of the "what is time ?" threads we usually encounter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Actually ( to be pedantic to a fault ), what the vast majority of existing clocks read, are the oscillations of a quartz crystal with an applied voltage.
This thread is just a variation of the "what is time ?" threads we usually encounter.

No, that's a valuable point.

It is really only the divisions of a span of time that we can measure(1/t).

ex.

-|-|-|-|-|

If the above is a span of 1 second, each oscillation is 1/5 of a second away from one another.  So counting 5 of these tells us 1 second has passed.

This clock would have a frequency of

5 hz

or simply put

5 oscillations per 1 second(5/s).

 

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 7:18 PM, studiot said:

 

Although not completely correct in your conclusions, you seem to have stumbled on an important aspect of the difference between space and time and this is a good way to describe it.

The point abut the length of the tree comapred to the length of the metre rul you mentioned earlier is embodied in some theory known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=i6T_Xc-XMY-qUMTZkYgH&q=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&oq=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30l10.648.648..1674...0.0..0.186.186.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.GXAhxkIHwvs&ved=0ahUKEwiPiZnk4MnmAhUPFRQKHcRsBHEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

When comparing an object. either to a measuring stick standard or directly to a coordinate framework itself,  to measure its 'length' you have to have this concept so that you compare both ends of the object measured at the 'same time'.

I know of no corresponding requirement to compare the readings on two clocks in the 'same space', although you may have to adjust (transform) the framework to a common base.

 

So +1 for encouragement.

The reading of clocks must be done in the same space. In fact it is impossible the be exactly in the same space, you can only put the clocks close enough to each other in order to get the same reading. If you put one clock close to you & the other far away you will get different readings. You can correct the reading knowing the exact position, and reversely if the 2 clocks have been synchronized you can know the distance to the 2nd clock.

Time looks like a devil that you cannot expose completely. What you can only do is touch its tail.

The properties of its tail are:

1. For any displacement in space you need time. No displacement can happen in zero time.

2. There is a finite value allowed for the velocity of this displacement (Speed Of Light). No displacement can happen in zero time. (statements 1 & 2 are basically the same)

3. Uniqueness (the fact that each electron is different from the other one) is a consequence of the fact that it cannot be at 2 points of space at the same time (ubiquity) because no displacement can happen in zero time. (Statement 3 is a direct consequence of statements 1 & 2)

4. Time is progressing only, what is called "the arrow of time", there is no negative time.

5. Time is considered a scalar quantity. It has an "arrow" but its measuring is not a vector. What we read on the clock is a number. This number is ever increasing (belonging to a specific date). However the round clock (between others) makes it ressemble a cycle.

6. The number from statement 5 can be associated to a coordinate in Spacetime. At this hour of this date, this clock on this planet in this unverse was at coord x,y,z,t. (where t is the fourth coordinate)

7. Relativity tells us that Time does not exist alone. What exists is a continuum called Spacetime. Spacetime is the devil to unmask.

8. There is surely a statement 8 but at this moment I cannot recall.

 

 

Edited by michel123456
virgules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

3. Uniqueness (the fact that each electron is different from the other one) is a consequence of the fact that it cannot be at 2 points of space at the same time (ubiquity) because no displacement can happen in zero time. (Statement 3 is a direct consequence of statements 1 & 2)

QM disagrees. Electrons are identical, and can exist be at more than one point of space at a time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MigL said:

Actually ( to be pedantic to a fault ), what the vast majority of existing clocks read, are the oscillations of a quartz crystal with an applied voltage.
This thread is just a variation of the "what is time ?" threads we usually encounter.

Thanks. Yes, of course. This thread is certainly about what is time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All clocks are really counters.

As such they measure elapsed time or time difference at their location.
This is only true if they run at a constant 'rate' (used as a horological term).

For instance ancient greek water clocks ran at a steadily decreasing rate and were only capable of indicating early motning, half morning, afternoon and night.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 8:24 AM, DNR said:

Now suppose, there is a growing tree, increasing in height (say length) by a meter every year. Is its length (the spatial dimension) responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its length? Certainly, the latter statement is true, not the former. The tree’s growth is responsible for its length (a spatial dimension). The spatial dimension of the tree is thus not the cause but the effect. It is not a requirement but an acquirement.

Now we see that, along with its length, the tree is also gaining ‘age’. Similar question can be asked for its age too. Is age (the fourth dimension) of the tree responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its age? Naturally, its growth is responsible for its age. Thus, age, or the fourth dimension too is not the cause but the effect. Fourth dimension (say, time) is, therefore, not a requirement for aging, but is an acquirement for aging. Time seems to be the fourth dimension of objects, a measurement of their aging.

Thus, in my view, a clock measures its own aging.

There are two camps to this problem, and I don't think there has been a consensus made about it.  It depends if you believe that time dilation is based on a distortion of spacetime itself, or if you believe that it is simply a difference in the receiving times of information, like in the popular explanation of the relativity of simultaneity.

Relativity of simultaneity explanation wouldn't agree that the tree actually ages faster or slower.  I found it to be more popular among users on the internet.  In Minkowski spacetime, it is an actual affect that makes it actually age more slowly. 

You seem to belong to that camp from talking about the 4th dimension, but the 4th dimension is just an extra coordinate to denote the time an object was at a specific location.  It is kind of like our relative speed determines how much we travel in the 4th dimension or time.  The faster you go, the less you move through time or the 4th dimension.   

Edited by Conjurer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, michel123456 said:

5. Time is considered a scalar quantity. It has an "arrow" but its measuring is not a vector. What we read on the clock is a number. This number is ever increasing (belonging to a specific date). However the round clock (between others) makes it ressemble a cycle.

6. The number from statement 5 can be associated to a coordinate in Spacetime. At this hour of this date, this clock on this planet in this unverse was at coord x,y,z,t. (where t is the fourth coordinate)

8. From the x,y,z,t coordinates system, in any FOR, at least one coordinate will increase. This ever increasing coordinate we call time.

In this statement again, "time" is equal to "change" (increase), but at least the t coordinate has the same weight (characteristics, properties) as the 3 others. IOW time can transform in any space coordinate and reversely.

Edited by michel123456

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Conjurer said:

There are two camps to this problem, and I don't think there has been a consensus made about it.  It depends if you believe that time dilation is based on a distortion of spacetime itself, or if you believe that it is simply a difference in the receiving times of information, like in the popular explanation of the relativity of simultaneity.

Explain, please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Conjurer said:

There are two camps to this problem, and I don't think there has been a consensus made about it.  It depends if you believe that time dilation is based on a distortion of spacetime itself, or if you believe that it is simply a difference in the receiving times of information, like in the popular explanation of the relativity of simultaneity.

Relativity of simultaneity explanation wouldn't agree that the tree actually ages faster or slower.  I found it to be more popular among users on the internet.  In Minkowski spacetime, it is an actual affect that makes it actually age more slowly. 

You seem to belong to that camp from talking about the 4th dimension, but the 4th dimension is just an extra coordinate to denote the time an object was at a specific location.  It is kind of like our relative speed determines how much we travel in the 4th dimension or time.  The faster you go, the less you move through time or the 4th dimension.   

 

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

Explain, please

 

Yes, in what way does the above post answer or discuss the question of what clocks measure ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Relativity of simultaneity explanation wouldn't agree that the tree actually ages faster or slower.  I found it to be more popular among users on the internet. 

Just goes to show that "popular among users on the Internet" is not as good as evidence for testing the validity of scientific theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

philosophically speaking, time is what happens despite what the clock measures.

It's a country mile 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strange said:

Just goes to show that "popular among users on the Internet" is not as good as evidence for testing the validity of scientific theories.

I agree.  It seems like a lot of them these days get their scientific information from an episode of Star Trek which claims particles are identical being a cover-up, so it doesn't create a public Star Trek Universe scare of people actually being murdered by transporter technology.  

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes, in what way does the above post answer or discuss the question of what clocks measure ?

I don't believe I could have made it any more clear.  If you are completely lost, then I am at a loss of what else to tell you about it.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Explain, please

I don't even know what this forums stance is on that or what stance you expect me to take here.  I made a proof almost a year ago in a thread when I first started using the forum.  Then studiot was so convoluted with the idea that I had a problem with relativity, I couldn't even get to a point to rather a biological entity actually ages under the effects of SR or not.  I think it was called proof of SR in Minkowski Spacetime or something like that.

Edited by Conjurer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

I don't even know what this forums stance is on that or what stance you expect me to take here. 
 

I expect that you don’t just make assertions and leave it at that. It seems to me this has come up a few times recently, and things haven’t improved.

 

Quote

I made a proof almost a year ago in a thread when I first started using the forum.  Then studiot was so convoluted with the idea that I had a problem with relativity, I couldn't even get to a point to rather a biological entity actually ages under the effects of SR or not.  I think it was called proof of SR in Minkowski Spacetime or something like that.

According to our search function, this thread is the first time you mentioned simultaneity. What I’m not understanding is how one could claim that two aspects of relativity could somehow disagree with each other so there would/could be “two camps” especially since you don’t explain anything about it at all.

Quote

I agree.  It seems like a lot of them these days get their scientific information from an episode of Star Trek which claims particles are identical being a cover-up, so it doesn't create a public Star Trek Universe scare of people actually being murdered by transporter technology. 

You’re on the list of people who don’t explain where they’re getting their scientific information...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

I don't even know what this forums stance is on that or what stance you expect me to take here

The stance here is that the effects of Relativity are real.

 

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

I couldn't even get to a point to rather a biological entity actually ages under the effects of SR or not

The stance here is that the biological entity do age.

Note: I disagree, but who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagreement requires evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 9:16 PM, DNR said:

What do our clocks read?

Probably, The Tell-Tale Heart... or, Hickory Dickery Dock when they’re tired. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.