Jump to content

What is time? (Again)


The victorious truther
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/9/2020 at 7:15 PM, MigL said:

By the same token, the victorious truther is proposing that muons decay, not according to their subjective time, but according to 'external' time/change. Does that mean a muon in an otherwise empty universe will not decay as there are no 'external' changes ???
( his proposal is easily falsified by the fact that time dilation extends a muon' decay time, but, is purely dependent on the muon's subjective speed )

The muon is not in the absence of changes or in this case if we assume its monadic properties are retained across time (via a physical instrument) it would be wrong to say it doesn't undergo or is absent from any change at all. Relational change (relative velocity), that is, not a change in its monadic properties (though how we would know its monadic properties didn't change is a tricky one). I'm not entirely saying that its relational changes cause it to decay but they do influence it (relative speed to other frames of reference). All of this is in the end is taking for granted the muons own clock and its proper time of which i'm not sure we've investigated. . . how does a muon keep track of time internally?

 

 

 

On 8/11/2020 at 2:54 AM, studiot said:
On 8/10/2020 at 12:41 PM, The victorious truther said:

As far as that interpretation goes but this depends on whether you identify spacetime as distinct from matter and its configurations (classical substantivalism), that it cannot exist in the absence of matter with its accompanying configurations (relationism), or that matter is fully identified with a specific spacetime region so an empty spacetime is basically a spacetime devoid of quantum field looking spacetime configurations (super-substantivalism).

You can even speculate whether it would mean anything for there to be spacetime without matter in GR without resorting to having to construct a new theory but newly analyze it again. In that arxiv article, while I cannot fully vouch for its veracity, presents the intriguing possibility that even in a universe thinly distributed with matter you could still get back a spacetime that was geometrically Minkowskian. We are assuming that spacetime could take on background inherent geometries independent of the mass distribution (as there isn't any supposed matter) in the empty spacetime. 

 

This may be your thread, but your latest post moves the goalposts.

Before you can discuss time in universes we are not in, you have to prove that the time in these universes is the same as time in out universe.

Difficult since we have not yet arrived at a definition of time in our universe.

Sorry. . . I was just playing a bit loose there with the terminology and positions from a sort of naive perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:
1 hour ago, The victorious truther said:

how does a muon keep track of time internally?

Why does it have to? You are anthropomorphizing this.

In special relativity we assume that certain objects have their own respective proper time and i'm assuming this translates over to QM as well as QF. Is it arbitrary when it decays then and how long afterwards? If not, then how does it know when it should be more probable to decay versus when it should if it can't keep track of how long it has been existent? Does it not have its own sense of proper time in Quantum Field theory or Quantum Mechanics?

I'd be anthropomorphizing this if I said the muon must have a top hat and a pocket watch. 

Edited by The victorious truther
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The victorious truther said:

In special relativity we assume that certain objects have their own respective proper time and i'm assuming this translates over to QM as well as QF. Is it arbitrary when it decays then and how long afterwards? If not, then how does it know when it should be more probable to decay versus when it should if it can't keep track of how long it has been existent? Does it not have its own sense of proper time in Quantum Field theory or Quantum Mechanics?

I'd be anthropomorphizing this if I said the muon must have a top hat and a pocket watch. 

You keep saying the muon has to know things 

A particle doesn’t have to “know” when to decay.  We observe that particle decay follows a certain law, and this law holds in the rest frame or the muon’s frame, consistent with SR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The victorious truther said:

how does a muon keep track of time internally

Muons are elementary particles, they have no internal parts or mechanisms. The decay times of muons is a probability distribution, with a peak (most probable) around ~2.2 μs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2020 at 3:22 AM, joigus said:

I'm not aware that muons are aware

Aware in the same sense that you sitting in a chair makes you and the chair 'aware' of each other. I should have used a word like 'interaction'. In Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field theory what theoretical entities are mean't to bring about the decay of a muon? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The victorious truther said:

Aware in the same sense that you sitting in a chair makes you and the chair 'aware' of each other. I should have used a word like 'interaction'. In Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field theory what theoretical entities are mean't to bring about the decay of a muon? 

But you're just using awareness as synonym of interaction. I prefer to say "interaction."

What brings about the decay of the muon is the W- weak boson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/22/2020 at 10:58 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Sure why not? Mathematically, instead of having quantities that change with respect to some time coordinate, you can always have quantities that change with respect to one another, without reference to any notion of time. ‘Change’ doesn’t imply time, and time doesn’t imply change. Derivatives (in the calculus sense) with respect to some quantity other than time are well defined and commonly used.

For example, imagine you have a purely 3D universe, without time, that contains a tea cup. The handle of the cup has a certain curvature; the interior surface of the cup also has curvature, which is probably numerically different. So the surface curvature changes with respect to spatial coordinates, rather than time. So you have a universe that encompasses changes, but no time. This is perfectly consistent and valid, at least in my mind

Can we have a change without a speed of change ?I suppose not

In my mind:

Time=Change/Speed of change

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

Can we have a change without a speed of change ?I suppose not

In my mind:

Time=Change/Speed of change

You need to actually read the post to which you are replying, which gave a fine example of change without speed of change.

Another one: Air pressure changes with altitude, which is change without time or 'speed of change'. It has a rate of change which is the first derivative of the atitiude/pressure relationship, but that rate has no time associated with it, and thus cannot be expressed as a 'speed of change'.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.