Measuring the measure of time

[Fred56]

We believe that we measure time, we say that time “times” things, or events, and that there are “intervals” of time, there is a “time distance”. Indeed much of Physics is based on the singular concept of linear time.

 

But we know that time doesn't really have “length”, or “width”, it doesn't occupy any space, like objects do, we can't “see” time. Time is dimensionless, in that sense.

 

We also say things like “heat is transferred” or “heat is motion” which is like saying that “movement moves”, so why not say that time “times” things? Or space “distances” things or distance “spaces” things, or motion “moves” things?

 

Isn't that, in fact all we ever really do when we measure anything? We measure the, er, measurement...

[swansont]

You aren't as likely to hear a physicist say "heat is transferred" since heat is a process, not a thing. Heat is the transfer of energy.

 

So part of the problem here is in using proper definitions.

 

Time is a dimension as it's used in physics; it's orthogonal to spatial dimensions, but one ramification of relativity is that transforming into another frame of reference does change the time dimension, as well as the spatial ones, and that this transformation is not linear.

 

If you go too far with all of this you leave science and enter philosophy, and there are already enough posts of that ilk that are already active.

[Spyman]

Physics is about how things are related. We measure relations.

[Edtharan]

We also say things like “heat is transferred” or “heat is motion” which is like saying that “movement moves”, so why not say that time “times” things? Or space “distances” things or distance “spaces” things, or motion “moves” things?

Sometimes it is easier to use a linguistic short cut when talking about a subject. I am sure that you will use a comment like "Typing into a browser" when talking about how you post stuff on the Internet. This is a linguistic short cut for the whole complex set of processes that go on from when you press a button on your keyboard to when it is displayed on the screen and then having your computer send that information across the net to the server, then when other people download that data and have it translated onto their screens (even just describing what is supposed to happen is complex, let along the processes that go on to make it happen).

 

So when someone says that something "happened long time ago" they are not referring directly to distance by the word "long". Indirectly they are, as Time is a Dimension (see other posts) and any gap between two points along any dimension can be considered a "Distance" (but the speaker probably isn't aware of that).

 

But we know that time doesn't really have “length”, or “width”, it doesn't occupy any space, like objects do, we can't “see” time. Time is dimensionless, in that sense.

Here is a question: How much Width does Length have?

 

The answer is none.

 

So does Time have a Width?. Well it has exactly the same amount of Width as Length does.

 

Each Dimension is perpendicular to all others, regardless if it is the 2nd dimension, the 4rd dimension or the 1,000,000th dimension.

 

Being perpendicular mean that it has none of the "directions" that all other dimensions have. So Time of course can not have any "Width" or Height, or Length". It has Time.

 

So Time is not "Dimensionless" if it has no Width. Length has no Width either and it is a dimension.

 

Isn't that, in fact all we ever really do when we measure anything? We measure the, er, measurement...

Well what we do is compare one measurement to an other. We have set a standard definition of what a Metre is. So when we measure something as 3.7 metres, we are really saying that something is equivalent to 3 and 7 tenths of the standard. Or to put it another way as a ratio 3.7:1.

 

To "measure" something in the most basic form is simply to put two arbitrary points along it. That is all it is. We can then put it to a scale (the standard two points) and give us a ratio between the standard two points and the two points we just marked.

 

This is why: The thing we are using to measure is not the thing we are measuring. IF it was, then we could not get a meaningful ratio, it would always be 1:1.

 

Now we can use the concept of "dimension" (that is lines of measurement perpendicular to all other lines of measurement) to set up a system by which we can get a unique value for each point we can possibly mark out.

 

If the directions of measurement were not perpendicular to all other directions, then it would be possible to either describe a point with more than one set of values, or one set of values could describe more than one point. The values we use to describe a point would no longer be unique for each point.

[Fred56]

Time is a dimension as it's used in physics; it's orthogonal to spatial dimensions

 

Yes, what I'm saying though is that it is only represented this way, not because it actually has dimensions, but because it's just too convenient a model.

We can't go and get some of this “time distance” from somewhere and compare it to another bit, like we do using a bit of “representative” distance, say, a ruler. We can't go and get 15 seconds and twack someone on the head with it, either, or “use” it (like a ruler or a thermometer) because it's “vapourware”. We only believe “time” is linear because we observe “regular” behaviour; because the clock ticks sound the “same” (or close enough for our inaccurate senses). Our belief in Time and our ability to measure it is due to change and is an artefact of the way we observe this change. Entropy is also change, so entropy explains our perception, or our belief in the existence of time. Even though it isn't really there. There is no time, only change, grasshopper.

 

Other things, like our concept of energy, seem to have similar issues. Here's something I got back from someone on another forum about mass/energy equivalence:

 

It [energy] is a number that describes a propensity of something to happen. If I hit a stationary pool ball with a moving one, the stationary one will start moving. The whole thing is operating on some set of rules, though, so there is a way to assign a number to the moving ball to figure out how much it will make the stationary one move. I can deal with the scalar energy or the vector momentum but they're both based on the same two properties--mass and velocity. And neither energy nor momentum are absolutes but depend on the reference frame in which they're measured.

 

The point is that energy is not an ingredient, not a building block, and things are not made of it. It is an abstract that, by virtue of the rules under which physics operates, we can use to describe the propensities and potentials of a system. Sometimes we like to pretend for a little while that it's not an abstract concept. We might talk of energy "flowing" from a hotter body to a cooler one or something. But as helpful as it is sometimes to picture it as such, energy is not a substance. It is, as I said, an abstract represented by a number.

 

P.S. I hope this thread is viewed more as at least philosophy of science, maybe.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well if you want you can look at my attempt to explain everything in terms of just one variable (either distance or time). You do need to know some calculus though.

[Farsight]

Spookily enough, that's where I've got to. Here's a picture of my one-trick pony.

 

 

It's like Google. It can only do one trick. But it's pretty darn brilliant.

 

[Fred56]

Well if you want you can look at my attempt to explain everything in terms of just one variable (either distance or time). You do need to know some calculus though.

 

Cheers, I read it already. Still doesn't get around the semantics that I think are the root of much confusion or misapprehension, or maybe misunderstanding (shudder) that's around, which of course includes my own.

[Mr Skeptic]

Cheers, I read it already. Still doesn't get around the semantics that I think are the root of much confusion or misapprehension, or maybe misunderstanding (shudder) that's around, which of course includes my own.

 

Yeah, I'm still missing something there, the way that we measure the "basic" thing that all the other measurements are made of. What I am missing is particles and their interaction: for example the Hydrogen spectrum can give me a photon of known energy/frequency/wavelength as a law of physics. I could use that for my ruler, but then I need to explain where Hydrogen comes from and describe it.

[swansont]

Yeah, I'm still missing something there, the way that we measure the "basic" thing that all the other measurements are made of. What I am missing is particles and their interaction: for example the Hydrogen spectrum can give me a photon of known energy/frequency/wavelength as a law of physics. I could use that for my ruler, but then I need to explain where Hydrogen comes from and describe it.

 

Why? Hydrogen exists. Measuring time does not require that you explain the origin of Hydrogen; that's a separate issue.

[Mr Skeptic]

Why? Hydrogen exists. Measuring time does not require that you explain the origin of Hydrogen; that's a separate issue.

 

It's just the nature of my little project. It feels like cheating to just grab the electron and proton from the particle list and not explain why they must be so. Maybe you should have a look at it, perhaps you could contribute.

[Spyman]

Yes, what I'm saying though is that it is only represented this way, not because it actually has dimensions, but because it's just too convenient a model.

But have you considered WHY "it's just too convenient a model" ?

 

Reality might be something completely different than the model, but then we leave the realm of science and have to speculate with faith and belief.

 

I put my bet on that the model who is most accurate in describing nature is likely to be closest to reality too.

 

 

We can't go and get some of this “time distance” from somewhere and compare it to another bit, like we do using a bit of “representative” distance, say, a ruler.

We can time a change and compare it to another change, we have clocks and recording machines.

We can't go and get 15 seconds and twack someone on the head with it, either, or “use” it (like a ruler or a thermometer) because it's “vapourware”.

You can't twack my head with 15 centimeters of space either, it's also “vapourware”.

 

And if you are allowed to twack me with a "representative", like a ruler, then I am allowed to twack you back with my "representative", like a VHS-tape.

 

I will put a qoute from Edtharan here for you to read:

Also keep in mind, that although we use Change to mark out a period of Time, that period is only a scale and not the thing we are measuring. We use a scale on a ruler to mark out distance, but that distance is not the ruler.

 

 

 

We only believe “time” is linear because we observe “regular” behaviour; because the clock ticks sound the “same” (or close enough for our inaccurate senses). Our belief in Time and our ability to measure it is due to change and is an artefact of the way we observe this change. Entropy is also change, so entropy explains our perception, or our belief in the existence of time.

Please note how many times you yourself mentioned belief in above quote.

 

Even though it isn't really there. There is no time, only change, grasshopper.

That is nothing you can prove, it's your personal belief, your faith or your opinion.

 

 

P.S. I hope this thread is viewed more as at least philosophy of science, maybe.

We have had different subforums for philosophy and recently I think thats supposed to be discussed in the "Pseudoscience and Speculations".

[Fred56]

But have you considered WHY "it's just too convenient a model" ?

 

Yes. I have.

 

You can't twack my head with 15 centimeters of space either, it's also “vapourware”.

 

Nor could I use 34 degrees of celsius, or 13.7 foot-pounds of torque (unless I happened to also be holding some physical object, like a wooden ruler), or any of the other “measurements” that this thread started up about.

This was meant to make a point about how these things aren't “real” (except as useful concepts). OK?

 

Please note how many times you yourself mentioned belief in above quote.

 

This was entirely my intention, as I am saying that our belief in our ability to measure time is just that, a belief.

 

That is nothing you can prove, it's your personal belief, your faith or your opinion.

 

And it seems to be your personal belief that I am trying to prove something. I'm maybe just trying to discuss interesting stuff, you know, things that make you, um, think a bit about them. Those sorts of things.

 

We have had different subforums for philosophy and recently I think thats supposed to be discussed in the "Pseudoscience and Speculations".

 

OK, but I would like to know how many others think this is philosophy or pseudoscience, it is a sort of speculation, but I would imagine it isn't original or anything.

[fredrik]

As usual I don't know what the original motive is but if Fred56 suggests that that measurements and the definition of many things ultimately are a bit fuzzy (but still clear for most practical purposes) I personally agree.

 

I think the question then is to ask, how come this apparently fuzzy stuff is still so successful? How come this shows remarkable stability and success?

 

And perhaps more important, and the key that will distinguish the discussion from fruitless philosophy is if this thinking or "insights" can be exploited to improve our own understanding of the apparent and effective reality? So that we can be even more fit? I think so.

 

My personal thinking of time is that it is a (our) choice of a parametrisation of observed relative changes.

 

A valid question is howto quantify _change_ before we have the notion of time without beeing circular? It seems we need a fundamental "measure of change" that does not utilize macroscopic references such as clocks.

 

I think such a measure can be constructed from "probabilistic" models, where one can induce effective probabilities for changes by combining information also about pattern of observed changes.

 

So I personally still await a fundamental unification dimensions from first principles. I think it can and will be done, sooner or later. In this way I personally don't consider these questions irrelevant to fundamental physics.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

it is a (our) choice of a parametrisation of observed relative changes.

 

yes, we choose to believe or accept both that our measurement is something available to us, and also that we are actually only using a previous, a remembered change, to do this, so in that sense our “measurement” is only a mental “event” (and has no “dimensionality”, as such).

[Spyman]

Yes. I have.

Still, you failed to argue my point.

 

This was meant to make a point about how these things aren't “real” (except as useful concepts). OK?

I showed you a logical error in your point.

 

This was entirely my intention, as I am saying that our belief in our ability to measure time is just that, a belief.

I was trying to point out that your saying is only a belief too, so the belief argument is at best neutral.

(Not in your favour and not scientific.)

 

And it seems to be your personal belief that I am trying to prove something. I'm maybe just trying to discuss interesting stuff, you know, things that make you, um, think a bit about them. Those sorts of things.

Well, I am sorry you took it that way, discussions requires arguments, and I thought you where interested in arguments in opposite to your thoughts and corrections when your logic faults. My reasons for engaging in this discussion was NOT to put you down, nor about my belief of your motives.

 

So, I am going to leave you to think about “vapourware”, without my interference.

 

OK, but I would like to know how many others think this is philosophy or pseudoscience, it is a sort of speculation, but I would imagine it isn't original or anything.

You managed to misinterpret my intensions here too. I didn't classify your thread, I gave you an friendly advice about where I think philosophy is supposed to be discussed. I don't make the rules and I won't bother much where threads are placed as long as there is some order and not totally caos.

 

When I joined we had "Philosophy and Religion": -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=62

 

And later on we got "Philosophy of Science": -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=119

 

I did not participiate in the closure of those subforums and what others think is irrelevant, this site is AFAIK privately owned and the owner is allowed to use his money as he pleases. It's "take it or leave it" styled.

 

 

Anyway, Good Luck with your discussion !

[fredrik]

yes, we choose to believe or accept both that our measurement is something available to us, and also that we are actually only using a previous, a remembered change, to do this, so in that sense our “measurement” is only a mental “event” (and has no “dimensionality”, as such).

 

I'm not sure I follow your way of putting it. The word "mental" sounds strange to me in the context, like time would be something specific to humans. In that case I'm not sure I agree.

 

I think it's at least "as real as anything gets". But of course, one can still argue how real anything can get and how stable this reality really is.

 

For me, what things "really are" is not interesting unless there is available to me discriminating factors. Things remain to me what the seem to be as induced from all available information, but things change, I learn and re-learn.

 

But in a sense I think I agree with you, that the old "absolute realism" views of these things are doubtful. I think the fact that some things are relative, subjective and fuzzy, doesn't make them "less real". I think reality is fuzzy.

 

/Fredrik

[Fred56]

I'm arguing that we, as observers, accept both that there is something to measure and also that it isn't anything other than a "remembering" process, the actual measurement. Like how numbers on a piece of paper are "memories". We have paper and better things to keep and compare these, but ultimately that is what they are. We only assume that other creatures can do this (although they must have some understanding of things like heat and distance and so on). This is getting a bit Descartian, but I don't think it goes as far. If true, then analysing what a memory is, how it results in our perception of a seamless reality, and so on, might be where to look, or not. But I think it requires some adjustment of our concept of the universe being external, or at least "measurable", (if they aren't the same thing, especially).

[pioneer]

Although time is a reference variable for mathematics, things can be simplified if time is also considered a type of potential. If one took a snap shot, with a camera, of a dynamic event, we would freeze time. When time is stopped by the picture, nothing is able to change. There is no motion, force, transfer or exchange of energy, etc.. Without time potential there is no change of state, force, energy, etc. Time potential is woven into all these variables and needs to lower so we can get change of state.

 

In a snap shot of something in motion, where time is frozen, we can still measure distance. Depending on our shutter speed, will determine the type of motion blur we will see ,that will allow us to know an object had velocity, even though it currently has no time potential to act, further. The distance variable will be distorted, by the time potential, that was used by the camera shutter, to stop time. If the two time potentials are not in synche, then there can be a distortion in distance.

 

That is what happens with relativity, were time potential is different in each reference. The measured distance variable distorts. With the laws of physics remaining the same in the moving reference, the change in the time potential variable causes a system wide modification of physics. The common tread changes all the time woven variables in direct proportion.

 

Although using time potential as a variable seems odd, what it does is allow us to average complex combinations of energy, force, motion, etc., using only the common thread that is making this all possible, in time. The way to make practical use of time potential, is to use it as a 3-D variable. Time potential in 1-D can be understood as being connected to energy. Energy has a fixed wavelengh (distance) and frequency (time). If we stopped time with our camera, the potential energy is conserved. The 1-D aspect of time potential is inherent within matter/energy.

 

The 2-D aspect of time potential, is velocity, where distance is now able to change with time. Even energy can change distance/wavelength via the dopplar shift during the 2-D or velocity aspect of time potential. If we stopped time, we reduce time to 1-D, so there is only potential energy. If we increase the time potential to 2-D, velocity-motion will resume.

 

The 3-D aspect of time potential is acceleration, where velocity itself will also change with time. This aspect of time potential is connected to force. If we stopped the third dimension of time, we would only have velocity since that type of snap shot would not allow acceleration due to force. If we stop the second dimension of time, we only have potential energy. The motion blur shows the dynamics of motion as a form of potential energy. If we stop the first dimension of time, then there is no energy, only void.

[Fred56]

time potential is different in each reference

Our sense that time evolves regularly or “linearly” is a direct consequence of the neurobiological mechanisms within us. These employ the regular folding and unfolding of specialised protein segments, and the “ticks” of this clock are kept going by a constant supply of energy from the environment. There are many feedback cycles, positive and negative (which are themselves regulated by other feedbacks) to ensure these “body clocks” run efficiently. These give us our sense of being “observers”, of time and everything else. They are the “system clock” for each individual human observer (and every other organism that has them, probably a big list), and can even be “reset” (now that the mechanisms are understood) with artificial stimulation.

 

But it means that our sense of time and our sense of change are based on the change in shape of a protein molecule. That this, has along with the rest of our “neurobiological” system, given us all that physics, math and other “models” (like pioneer's succinct and quite logical one above), is kinda deep, or something.

 

Um

 

I might need to revise my initial assessment of pioneer's model. I only skimmed through it so I didn't spot some of the problems it has until I read it again. But I thought he was talking about how acceleration can be analysed by doing things like “squaring” time. And that his “snapshot” metaphor was to do with what happens when a derivative is taken with respect to time,and I thought that was the point of his post . Oh well...

 

Monday arvo

Here's the start of a (long) conversation between two Pythonesque characters about, you know, the "T" word (I made this up):

 

What makes you so sure you can measure time?

 

Well, I can use my watch.

 

How do you know your watch measures the "time", though?

 

Well, it ticks. It's ticking constantly.

 

What do you mean it ticks? How does it tick? Does it tick all at once, or does it tick, stop a bit, then do a bit more ticking? Or does it stop, do a few ticks, then stop a bit more, then a few more ticks? What exactly is this "ticking"?

 

Well, I can hear it ticking, and it ticks regularly, once per second.

 

But when you hear a new tick, where is the old one? How can you tell that it isn't just the same tick, all over again?

 

Well, I can remember the last one. I can remember lots of ticks.

 

But how do you know the new one isn't the same as the last one? It might just be tricking you like that.

 

How can my watch trick me? You mean it's a sort of illusion?

 

Well, think about it, you can't really tell that it isn't the same tick. I mean all those ticks you manage to remember in your head are only there. In your head, I mean. We've only got your word for it.

 

But I know my watch ticks regularly, and I know it can tell me what time it is.

 

But how do you know? How do you know that your watch isn't just using the same time over and over, and just pretending to tell you what time it is?

 

...and so on

[brodix]

I think time is a consequence of motion, rather then the basis for it. Consider;

 

If two atoms collide, it creates an event in time. While the atoms proceed through this event and on to others, the event goes the other way. First it is in the future, then in the past. This relationship prevails at every level of complexity. The rotation of the earth, relative to the radiation of the sun, goes from past events to future ones, while the units of time/days go from being in the future to being in the past. To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise.

 

So which is the real direction? If time is a fundamental dimension, then physical reality proceeds along it, from past events to future ones. On the other hand, if time is a consequence of motion, then physical reality is simply energy in space and the events created go from being in the future to being in the past. Just as the sun appears to go from east to west, when the reality is the earth rotates west to east.

Since energy is just moving around, previous information is constantly being recycled by and giving structure to the present, as the energy by which it is recorded continues on its path. Rather then the straight line of a dimension, time is a loop, where the new is being woven out of strands pulled from the past.

The polite reaction has been that this idea may make superficial sense, but physics is not intuitive. I would say that it is the notion of time as a line that is intuitive. It was Edgar Allen Poe who first proposed space and time as one and while there has been much complex math developed to support time as dimension, complexity isn't evidence of proof. Remember epicycles? We spent over a millennium trying to make that work. Time as consequence of motion means it has more in common with temperature, as a description of motion, then space, which certainly is not intuitive.

 

The physical reality of energy goes from past events to future ones, while the information it is recording goes from being in the future to being in the past. One of the many anomalies of modern physics is that quantum uncertainty seemingly leads to multiple realities, but if it is information going from future to past, then it is the wave of future potential collapsing into the order of the past.

[Fred56]

brodix:

 

I think your post is quite good, but can see one or two philosophical, and semantic, problems. Since these have been covered (sort of) in this thread already I can leave it at that, or would you like to haggle over, I mean discuss, some of the finer points?

[brodix]

brodix:

 

I think your post is quite good, but can see one or two philosophical, and semantic, problems. Since these have been covered (sort of) in this thread already I can leave it at that, or would you like to haggle over, I mean discuss, some of the finer points?

 

Fred,

 

Haggling sounds fine by me. Obviously I don't claim to know every aspect of Relativity and Quantum theory, but I find this basic idea provides insight into other aspects of reality.

That said, I realize few people are going to take what I have to say seriously and so don't get too worked up about it. Frankly you sound more considerate of my attempts to understand reality then most. Openly questioning the fundamentals does get peoples backs up quite quickly.

[Fred56]

OK. Ready? Here we go then:

 

If two atoms collide, it creates an event in time.

This is ok to say, but on analysis, the first question has to be: where is the event created? It makes more sense to say “when” the event is created. Except then you're saying that time “times” events. The old circular definition problem.

While the atoms proceed through this event and on to others, the event goes the other way. First it is in the future, then in the past.

Here, your argument runs into some semantic difficulty. “Proceed” and “goes the other way” imply movement of some kind. Again, the circular definition appears: you are saying something like: “events move through time”. But you're still only saying “time is what times the event”

Since energy is just moving around

On the first page of this thread I quoted something from another website about energy. This says that the concept of energy “flowing” or moving is just a concept, nothing more.

the information it is recording goes from being in the future to being in the past

But where is it being recorded? So God does keep a backup (of the universe)?

 

Note: before when I posted this:

We can't go and get some of this “time distance” from somewhere and compare it to another bit, like we do using a bit of “representative” distance, say, a ruler.

it occurred to me that:

 

Well, we can if we use a couple of stopwatches. Except that these are “representative” of time. They don't have little “time tanks” inside and we can't get any of this time stuff out of one of them.

 

And:

 

Things like rulers, watches, thermometers, pressure transducers, indeed all of the various instruments we make for such a purpose, are all used to “assess” or “manipulate” our concept of change and its measurement. This concept, or experience of change in the world around us, is based entirely on our own internal mechanisms of change. We use change to measure change. There seems to be no easy way around this apparent conundrum.

 

Each of the instruments is ultimately an extension of our concept of such change. We know we can't get the temperature out of a thermometer and put it somewhere (say for later use), or grab a few metres of distance. We only have a “representation” of these things. This representation only ever has a “mental” existence. Reality is memory.

[lakmilis]

You aren't as likely to hear a physicist say "heat is transferred" since heat is a process, not a thing. Heat is the transfer of energy.

 

So part of the problem here is in using proper definitions.

 

Time is a dimension as it's used in physics; it's orthogonal to spatial dimensions, but one ramification of relativity is that transforming into another frame of reference does change the time dimension, as well as the spatial ones, and that this transformation is not linear.

 

If you go too far with all of this you leave science and enter philosophy, and there are already enough posts of that ilk that are already active.

 

true swansont, but stating time is a dimension is already 'leaving' science. In a model it works....don't forget in terms when tryign to explain such things as time is a dimension one might use the classical rubber sheet object model...and why it rotates around an indentation in the sheet...but then one is 'explaining' gravity through gravity.... a ball on a sheet representing gravity is circular when saying it would curve around the indentation as that would only happen when one assumes gravity is still working downwards on the sheet and the object...but thats what we are trying to explain. if gravity was represented by the sheet and not the sheet + our conceptual idea of gravity working 'downwards' like on earth, the object would just keep moving in its 'straight' path over the indentation right?