Hi,

Time postulate 1. The cause of time is created by all forms of energy.
Time postulate 2. The effect, duration, of time is only applied on matter.

These two "time" postulates are hereby proposed on the Speculations section.
Any objections? Or some, maybe, aha.. sighs.

/chron44

5 minutes ago, chron44 said:

The cause of time is created by all forms of energy

I don't know what that means.
Are you considering entropy a form of un-useable energy ?

7 minutes ago, chron44 said:

duration, of time is only applied on matter

While massless non-matter has no valid frame, it does have a 'travel' time of d/c.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by MigL

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Time postulate 2. The effect, duration, of time is only applied on matter.

Fundamental bosons are not matter. Can you show that they are unaffected by time? W and Z have mass, so they do not travel at c.

Hi,

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Time postulate 2. The effect, duration, of time is only applied on matter.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Fundamental bosons are not matter. Can you show that they are unaffected by time? W and Z have mass, so they do not travel at c.

Have to reveal that I'm no expert. So my fundamental reservation may be physically inaccurate. -To my knowledge the only boson here "suitable" for this specific objection/ reasoning is/ are the "photon", inclusive its 2 more energetic "versions". First, are these 3 photon-variants, defined 0 mass in physics, really being fully massless? For my knowledge also the standard photon may have some extreme small mass in "reality". Though the phys-community is by "consensus" giving the photon, the X-ray photon and the gamma-ray photon 0 mass, all three. (Mathematically.)

Can we maybe first sort out this consensus stand - and - the issue of maybe some of these photon variants having some extreme small mass, in "the reality", that to say.

Is this settle-out issue relevant or not, for further reasoning, on this specific aspect?

Edited August 22Aug 22 by chron44
more readable

6 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Is this settle-out issue relevant or not, for further reasoning, on this specific aspect?

No as time also applies to non material things like fields.

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Hi,

Time postulate 1. The cause of time is created by all forms of energy.
Time postulate 2. The effect, duration, of time is only applied on matter.

These two "time" postulates are hereby proposed on the Speculations section.
Any objections? Or some, maybe, aha.. sighs.

/chron44

You can't just postulate something and leave it at that.

You haven't even shown that your two postulates are compatible with each other.

You haven't done anything with those postulates, you seem to be leaving others to do all the work.

Note for relativity Einstein made two postulates and demonstratd that theya re compatible.
Then he did lots with them.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

You can't just postulate something and leave it at that.

You haven't even shown that your two postulates are compatible with each other.

You haven't done anything with those postulates, you seem to be leaving others to do all the work.

OK, Hi, studiot.

I have done some work on this issue I'm raising here, actually. Sorry if you found my quest a bit, here, non-theorized.

It's a hard issue, and I admit that.

First I would have some clarifying from swansont, before going further in reasoning. I find this point rather fundamental for further advance in the issue of the 2 time postulates given in the opening quest.

No as time also applies to non material things like fields. (studiot - asked)

Think maybe this field-objection is, by the physics-community stand, included into my issue to "swanson" - the community's (math) stand about fields. Some of you here claim - no energy (field) - no matter/particles/no "substance". I think i is "Mordred".

: |

Edited August 22Aug 22 by chron44
correctures

29 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Have to reveal that I'm no expert. So my fundamental reservation may be physically inaccurate. -To my knowledge the only boson here "suitable" for this specific objection/ reasoning is/ are the "photon", inclusive its 2 more energetic "versions". First, are these 3 photon-variants, defined 0 mass in physics, really being fully massless? For my knowledge also the standard photon may have some extreme small mass in "reality". Though the phys-community is by "consensus" giving the photon, the X-ray photon and the gamma-ray photon 0 mass, all three. (Mathematically.)

Can we maybe first sort out this consensus stand - and - the issue of maybe some of these photon variants having some extreme small mass, in "the reality", that to say.

Is this settle-out issue relevant or not, for further reasoning, on this specific aspect?

The consensus is no mass because that’s what the evidence says. Considering only the photon shows the problem; physics has a lot of moving parts and they mesh fairly well, so you can’t only look at a subset of it when considering such a broad topic.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

The consensus is no mass because that’s what the evidence says. Considering only the photon shows the problem; physics has a lot of moving parts and they mesh fairly well, so you can’t only look at a subset of it when considering such a broad topic.

I see your point rater well, for the other "moving parts". Still can't we just, for the "clean reasoning's" sake focus on one specific "moving part"? My tough reasoning point should be "Mordred's" general (to my memory) statement of that even "energy" must consist of "something". And also the big A.E. was in line with such an idea.

Maybe this aspect is too "illusive or visionary" for further reasoning about the two opening postulates?
Then I have to end this issue myself here.

/chron44

15 minutes ago, chron44 said:

I see your point rater well, for the other "moving parts". Still can't we just, for the "clean reasoning's" sake focus on one specific "moving part"? My tough reasoning point should be "Mordred's" general (to my memory) statement of that even "energy" must consist of "something". And also the big A.E. was in line with such an idea.

Maybe this aspect is too "illusive or visionary" for further reasoning about the two opening postulates?
Then I have to end this issue myself here.

/chron44

I very much doubt that Mordred said exactly that since energy is not a substance or a thing.

If you want to offer it please find the quote.

50 minutes ago, chron44 said:

OK, Hi, studiot.

I have done some work on this issue I'm raising here, actually. Sorry if you found my quest a bit, here, non-theorized.

It's a hard issue, and I admit that.

First I would have some clarifying from swansont, before going further in reasoning. I find this point rather fundamental for further advance in the issue of the 2 time postulates given in the opening quest.

No as time also applies to non material things like fields. (studiot - asked)

Think maybe this field-objection is, by the physics-community stand, included into my issue to "swanson" - the community's (math) stand about fields. Some of you here claim - no energy (field) - no matter/particles/no "substance". I think i is "Mordred".

: |

My comment about fields is much more general than that.

I did not mention photons, in my view they are a complete red herring.

However I would agree with you headline title.

Possibly the best we can do is to make specific definitions for a specific purpose, knowing that this definition is incomplete but does the joj in hand.

51 minutes ago, chron44 said:

I see your point rater well, for the other "moving parts". Still can't we just, for the "clean reasoning's" sake focus on one specific "moving part"?

It’s like trying put a queen-sized fitted sheet on a king-sized bed. You get one corner on and another comes undone.

IOW it’s likely to fail once you try to make it work with the rest of physics, and if so, it’s wrong.

51 minutes ago, chron44 said:

My tough reasoning point should be "Mordred's" general (to my memory) statement of that even "energy" must consist of "something". And also the big A.E. was in line with such an idea.

Energy is a property of things, so (like studiot) I’d like to see the actual statement and context.

ok...

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Possibly the best we can do is to make specific definitions for a specific purpose, knowing that this definition is incomplete but does the joj in hand.

For to make the opening 2 time postulates comprehensive - understandable.

A third and a fourth "made-up"- postulates, drawn from Einstein's proposed basic view of the GR - theories.
About specifically the GR "field" involved, is that this field should/probably consist of a "substance", or a similar expression from Einstein.

Time postulate 3. Energy is the most "microcosm" entity possible.
Time postulate 4. Matter is hence defined somewhere higher in energy level of this "microcosm" entity.

These postulates are for the moment not able to be verified, because of present measurement limits.

So, these totally four "Time postulates" cannot be verified today. Maybe in some years ahead.

/chron44

Edited August 22Aug 22 by chron44
correctures

4 hours ago, chron44 said:

Hi,

Time postulate 1. The cause of time is created by all forms of energy.
Time postulate 2. The effect, duration, of time is only applied on matter.

I very much agree with @MigL when he said,

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't know what that means.

In my own wording:

It's TVTBU.*

Therefore, it's NEW.

* = Too vague to be useful

Sorry,
Of course the postulate 3 is reversed at the word .. the "most" microcosm ..
Should be .. the "least" microcosm ...

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Time postulate 3. Energy is the most "microcosm" entity possible.
Time postulate 4. Matter is hence defined somewhere higher in energy level of this "microcosm" entity.

Therefore postulate 3. should be:

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Time postulate 3. Energy is the least "microcosm" entity possible.
Time postulate 4. Matter is hence defined somewhere higher in energy level of this "microcosm" entity.

I've got some problems with my working-memory. Not to mix with my general arguing ability

/chron44

Hi,

If trying to reason, without the possibility to measure any of the very/ extreme low energy and matter levels involved in the 4 Time postulates: -Merely maybe trying to cope or just "accept" Einstein's basic view of a probable "substance" responsible in his GR equations, for instance.

The basic idea, is that "energy" being the least, smallest, possible "substance" in space. Definitively magnitudes under any known elementary particle's energy level. Hence impossible to measure with present tech.

In a physical and mathematical sense the starting microcosm energy (substance) must follow laws of entropy and statistics, and so on. Also incorporate the basics of the universe as we physically knows it: -Holding electromagnetism and gravity as starting "entities" for supporting the known forces and particles. (Bosons and fermions.) -Also the inevitable law of symmetry must be fulfilled. And so on.

This is feasible with math and physics standard expression(s).

Think of statistics applied on microcosm "entities" evoking some massive or massless particle(s). -Any exotic, non-massive or massive, particles may be evoked holding energy: Aka the massless boson(s), or a "prestate" of a such. -Then several continuing "entropy" processes leading to the manifesting of "Time". Therefore"time" is in need of "matter" for to be seen and noticed by any tech available. Even "fields" of any sort becomes in this manner time-dependent.

This reasoning IS - NEW - as "joigus" noticed.
And, this is the Speculations section.

/chron44

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

Energy is the most "microcosm" entity possible.

Again, what does this mean ?
I assume microcosm is in quotes because you are giving it a non-standard definition.

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

the GR "field" involved, is that this field should/probably consist of a "substance", or a similar expression from Einstein

You're going to supply a citation for this also ?
I don't remember reading any Einstein where he says the geometric ( space-time ) field is a "substance'.
Or are you assigning a non-standard definition to substance also.

26 minutes ago, chron44 said:

The basic idea, is that "energy" being the least, smallest, possible "substance" in space. Definitively magnitudes under any known elementary particle's energy level. Hence impossible to measure with present tech.

Energy, not being a substance, is a property of photons.
As such, a pair of high energy photons ( gamma ) can give rise to a a couple of particles with the property of mass ( obeying conservation laws, of course ) with additional energy supplying the property of momentum to those particles.
Clearly the energy of the photons is greater than that of the particles.

29 minutes ago, chron44 said:

Hi,

If trying to reason, without the possibility to measure any of the very/ extreme low energy and matter levels involved in the 4 Time postulates: -Merely maybe trying to cope or just "accept" Einstein's basic view of a probable "substance" responsible in his GR equations, for instance.

The basic idea, is that "energy" being the least, smallest, possible "substance" in space. Definitively magnitudes under any known elementary particle's energy level. Hence impossible to measure with present tech.

In a physical and mathematical sense the starting microcosm energy (substance) must follow laws of entropy and statistics, and so on. Also incorporate the basics of the universe as we physically knows it: -Holding electromagnetism and gravity as starting "entities" for supporting the known forces and particles. (Bosons and fermions.) -Also the inevitable law of symmetry must be fulfilled. And so on.

This is feasible with math and physics standard expression(s).

Think of statistics applied on microcosm "entities" evoking some massive or massless particle(s). -Any exotic, non-massive or massive, particles may be evoked holding energy: Aka the massless boson(s), or a "prestate" of a such. -Then several continuing "entropy" processes leading to the manifesting of "Time". Therefore"time" is in need of "matter" for to be seen and noticed by any tech available. Even "fields" of any sort becomes in this manner time-dependent.

This reasoning IS - NEW - as "joigus" noticed.
And, this is the Speculations section.

/chron44

I'm sorry there's no easy or kind way to put this.

Your post is not reasoning at all.

It is piling fantasy upon fantasy and contains not a single scrap of supporting evidence or reasoning.

No just because something is small does not make it 'impossible to measure.'

The only circumstance that I can think of where something can be declared impossible to measure would be that it has no effect whasoever on material objects.

You have already been told that energy is a property, not a substance, yet you press on, invoking yet more undeclared statements of Einstein.

And in any case I thought this thread was about time , not energy.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by studiot

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

The basic idea, is that "energy" being the least, smallest, possible "substance" in space. Definitively magnitudes under any known elementary particle's energy level. Hence impossible to measure with present tech.

You need to identify what this substance is. How it’s detected, what the experimental evidence for it is, etc.

Hi, again.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You need to identify what this substance is. How it’s detected, what the experimental evidence for it is, etc.

Yes, that's totally right, of course. Physic is in its essence measurement. I have finally understood this. (Being an interested layman.)

The big, really big problem, raised in Sagan's line, is due, to my view, the obvious "microcosm" entity involved. Magnitudes under any possibility to detect with novel tech. The - mathematical idea - for supporting the experimental evidence; ALSO is hinting extreme low energy levels for the energy evoking matter. And matter is the only "device" which - again, for my view - manifests [Time]. When matter in it self is exposing duration. "When matter rolls." -This is time.

1. All sorts of - energy - is needed for to "roll" matter. Noticed as time.
2. The here specified "microcosm" substance - energy - is by the mathematical idea - identifying, telling, the substance. Which is questioned here above for.
3. The mathematical idea, a physics theory, should and must finalize in matter.
4. This means that - entropy, the arrow of time - by all means become involved in fields, bosons and fermions. Which is an unconditional physics criterion.

The "only" problem, here, is that the math in it self is not yet written. Exactly what "swansont" asked for. The specific identification, expressed

To my view this math hints extreme magnitudes below any detection possible. The evidence, detection, should therefore, in present tech level, be the theoretical finalizing of our existing elementary particles. Besides answers on odd anomalies which novel physics got. For example, why isn't any proton decay found during the last decades. -More actual, the natural physical "reason" why the photon seemingly hasn't any anti-particle, though this is fairly explained by the standard model, etc... We probably end up with some type of a TOE math. -If [Time] is to be defined. So, the evidence for this math is eluding all physics tech. Revealed to be the an elusive present situation.

So, yes, the C. Sagan line is relevant and, probably also is what it says, "profoundly resistant" to a simple definition.

/chron44

Edited August 23Aug 23 by chron44
correcture

In a seies of postulates, at least one must be operational. Otherwise, the theory is empty.

Thus, quatum mechanics (which has eight or more) starts with,

physical system --> Hilbert space

state --> vector

observable --> operator

etc,

but closes the deal with,

probabilities --> quadratics in Hilbert space

Now, probabilities can be measured.

No operational postulate can be seen here.

Have to rather much scrutinize my four just earlier physics - all too hasty reasoned - criteria points.
Probably I have to leave the subject, definition of Time, though being too comprehensive for any layman in physics.

Although, these are the updated four points, in my personal effort of minimizing mixing with standard physics vocabulary and stand.
(Some or much is not recognized for being common physics.)

1. All sorts of - energy - is needed for to "roll" matter. Noticed as time.

2. The here specified "microcosm" substance - energy - is from the searched mathematical idea - identifying, telling, the substance.

3. The mathematical idea, a physics theory, should and must finalize in matter. And its life-span as energy-matter.

4. This gives that entropy, for instance, is - mathematically revealing - the arrow of time - in universe's evolution, resulting, that Time only going in one direction.

The 4:th point is a bit over-worked. "Tried" to cope the true physics meaning of "entropy".

The math is the hard part. Not because math is hard, or needs to be complicated. But it allows for specific predictions, which we require, to allow for comparison with experiment.

But you don’t have it, so this is closed