Time potentials

[pioneer]

There is a way to photograph time to show its affect, implying it is a potential or something very similar. Let's start with a simple scenario. What we have is a group of cheerleaders standing in static pose. At the front is one cheerleader who is twirling a baton. What we are going to do is take a photo, but with a slow shutter speed. The result will be motion blur, but only at the baton. Using this still photo one will get the impression the baton is in motion, due to the motion blur. The rest of the photo appears stationary. Even in the still photo one can see the affect normally attribute to time but only in the zone where a change of state is occurring.

 

The reason this occurs is because the shutter speed is too slow. Or the difference between stopping the baton in the photo and the amount of motion blur has a direct connection to the amount of time left in photo. The impact of this extra time potential is to create a distortion in distance or space, that makes the mass of the baton appear to occupy a range of space at the same time. Or the time potential creates an uncertainty in distance. It is due to space-time being out of proportion due to more time than distance being left in the photo due to the slow shutter speed. We have not done anything to distance that is held constant. But did not compensate for all the time potential in the motion of baton because of the slow shutter speed. The intimate connection of space-time causes the distance variable to show a time affect or the impression of motion.

 

To test this theory we need to find another phenomena where there is uncertainty in position or distance. What come to mind is the electron where we can't know position and momentum at the same time. It is sort of a motion blur affect because the time potential or shutter speed is off relative to stationary reference. It may be cause by the electron at 1/15C. The electron is in a slightly different relativistic time reference so we always have a shutter speed problem when we try to photograph it. The compaction of space-time due to relativity causes the electron to have just a tiny bit more time potential that we can't get out of the photo.

[dichotomy]

The intimate connection of space-time causes the distance variable to show a time affect or the impression of motion.

 

Or, a motion affect or the impression of time?

 

So, this whole Space–Time thing might be better described as Space–Motion?

[swansont]

split off from the "defining time" thread

 

———

 

The shutter speed/baton example is not a relativistic effect.

[pioneer]

The only place in the cheerleader example, where time was not fully compensated for, due to the slow shutter speed, was at the baton. The motion blur only occurs where there is excess time potential.

 

An easier way to see this is to look at the chemical-physics of photography. The output affect of photography, or photo, is based on light energy impinging upon a chemical emulsion to create a change of chemical state that reflects the exact energy input. In that one spot, where there is extra time potential, the energy distribution is distorted relative to any exact distance correlation. This may not occur, but it almost gives the impression that the energy is splitting or lensing.

 

The baton is giving off light energy at the speed of light. Relative to the slow twirl speed of a baton the speed of light should always win. But the photo picks up the energy, at the baton, in a bunch of distance coordinates, at the same time, not because of anything that distance is doing. The result is the energy impinging upon the emulsion shows an indeterminacy where the time potential is not fully compensated for. This energy indeterminacy hits the chemical emulsion to capture the excess time potential.

[Sayonara]

Effect.

[swansont]

The image blurs because you are collecting photons from more than one location on a plane, and the lens of the camera is imaging that plane onto another (the film or CCD). The amount of blurring is directly related to the speed of the object (as projected onto the plane) and the shutter speed — if either one is sufficiently small, there is no blurring.

 

This is not a relativistic effect. You are introducing a "time potential" to explain something that is readily explained by kinematics.

[pioneer]

Time can be demonstrated be be real and tangible using photography via the observation called motion blur. This occurs when the shutter speed is slower than the change of state of an object in the photo. This creates the perception of motion within a still photograph. The object in motion appears to occupy a range of space, all at the same time, sort of making position in distance indeterminate.

 

To understand this affect one has to look at the physical chemistry of film. The light energy impinges upon the film emulation to create a permanent chemical change in the emulsion. What we see in the final photo is a reflection of how the energy actually impinged upon all the atoms in the emulsion. The blur implies the energy somehow became diverged or fanned out, but only in the places where there was a change of state. This energy divergence hits the atoms within the film emulsion and is recorded. If the shutter speed is too slow to stop the time in the action, we leave excess time potential in the photo. Energy undergoes a distortion being recorded on the film. Or time potential affects energy.

 

The light energy is moving at the speed of light. If the distances were say 5 meters to the moving object and the shutter speed is 1/100 sec, the speed of light should be too fast to create anything but a tiny affect. But the affect is very distinct with the affect getting higher at slower slower shutter speeds where the speed of light is getting proportional higher.

 

One may argue it is the directional movement of the shutter that is causing this. But using the same shutter movement, say left to right, one can get motion blur in any direction, with the blur only dependant on the direction of the change of state and not the shutter movement. Or one may say the final tiny opening in the shutter cause light diffraction before it closes. But this can't be correct since still aspects of the photo are always very clear, with the energy distortion affect only where there is motion.

 

One speculative way to explain the affect is using the single slit experiment where the light waves appear to split and fan out. But in this case, we may be observing space becoming full of slits due to the time potential being out of proportion with space, i.e., an irregular space-time affect, due to excess time potential. The slowest shutter speeds leave more time potential making more slits causing more energy distortion, causing more motion blur. This is complete speculation trying to explain how the energy is distorted, with this distortion of energy being recorded via its impact on the film emulsion. The affect is real, but the explanation stills needs discussion. One can examine the film microscopically to see this energy spread. It is not an illusion but a real tangible affect.

 

Another explanation is a type of virtual affect on the energy. At finite speeds we are creating an affect loosely analogous to virtual pairs with the energy able to appear in more than one place at the same time due to the excess time potential in the photo. The virtual movement is very directional, with the virtual separation always following the direction of movement or the direction in which time potential is flowing.

 

Another explanation is the earth is not a stationary reference. It has real relativistic mass-energy affects, with the photo showing some of the virtual or relativistic mass-energy that exists apart from the tangible particles. This energy is funneled directionally by the excess time potential. There may be other explanations with the final affect recorded permanently.

[pioneer]

The thing with distance or time is that it is not clear if these are things based on our reference. When you start to get into relativity, defining these as things makes it easier. For example, if we define time potential, and relate this to a thing called energy, the more energy the more time potential we have. The laws of physics can only process energy or time potential at a given rate. If we increase time potential, using laws of physics designed to process at x, then it will take longer. What we see is the backlog that we call time dilation.

 

Einstein said the laws of physics are the same in all references. If they are the same, then their processing rates for energy are the same or they would be different in different references. In other words, if the EM force could double in another reference the laws of physics would have a 2X factor such that EM force could do anything we want. We could make stuff up. If the number don't add up and need an extra 1.23 EM I just assume there is a virtual affect to give me what I need. But with the laws being fixed in all references, there is a cross the board limit to how fast these can process time or distance potential. The result are the backlog affects in relativity. It come down to convention with time potential simplifying things.

 

One way to look at how time potential is connected to energy is to look at frequency. The frequency is loosely analogous to a spring with potential stored in it. This time aspect is not what one would expect from a speed of light reference. We should not see finite expression in time from an object moving at C. The time potential is connected to energy at C, but expresses itself in our reference with a finite expression that exists apart from what SR would predict one should be able to see at C. The C aspect is sort of cold storage allowing the time potential to last as long as necessary until we are able to process it with matter. Then a change of state occurs, which we equate with time. The laws of physics can only process this finite aspect of energy or time potential at a given rate, so relativity gives us backlog type affects.

[pioneer]

There is a way to address uncertainty with only one assumption. It has to do with making time a type of potential. The uncertainty affect can be simulated using a camera and motion blur. This is done when the shutter speed is too slow to capture the motion speed. The uncertainty in distance or distance blur, is related to time, with excess time potential left in the photo, creating the uncertainty in distance. This is not an artifact of experimental measurement being to slow. The uncertainty is due to extra time potential inherent with the object.

 

If we change the experiment, adjust the shutter speed to match the motion or time element of the object, we lose the uncertainty and get a sharp picture. The time potential is balanced. If we use the same picture to photograph it twice we will get what appears to be the same object in two places similar to a quantum jump. This is also extra time potential with the shutter reset analogous to the slow shutter speed. We can combine these affects to create uncertainty between quantum states.

 

In terms of chaos and determinism; if we could go from the initial to the final determined state as fast as is theoretically possible it would take x amount of time. This hypothetical scenario is analogous to building a puzzle using the fastest most organized approach. In the real world there will be much more trial and error so it takes longer. Chaos reflects more time potential having to be processed before it will reaches the final state. This can involve both quantum and uncertainty. This directly related to system energy with more energy often allowing more uncertainty.

 

If we look at a photon, we observe wavelength and frequency. The frequency has a time or clock feature. So if we could hypothetically remove the wavelength aspect of energy, from energy, and leave just the frequency aspect to move at C, it would no longer act exactly like a wave, because it would move in a discontinuous way, with wave breaks. In chaotic systems the wave addition is not really symmetrical for long.

 

Statistics implies excess time potential. For example, is we throw a coin it will come up 50/50 head-tails over time. But it will not do this every two tosses continuously. There will be a time delay between reaching that magic 50/50 number even though it is determined to happen.

 

The universe has too much time potential on its hands.

[fredrik]

I'm not sure how you plan to take this further but what do you think about these papers, that are remotely similar to what sounds like your associations.

 

"Are We Cruising a Hypothesis Space?" C.C Rodriguez

-- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics?papernum=9808009

 

"...1. The appearance of time is a consequence of uncertainty.

 

2. Space is infinite dimensional and only

on the average appears as four dimensional.

 

3. Spin is a property of space and not of a particle so that all truly fundamental particles must have spin..."

 

 

 

 

"The Information Geometry of Space and Time" Ariel Caticha

-- http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508108

 

 

 

"Is the geometry of space a macroscopic manifestation of an underlying microscopic statistical structure? Is geometrodynamics - the theory of gravity - derivable from general principles of inductive inference? Tentative answers are suggested by a model of geometrodynamics based on the statistical concepts of entropy, information geometry, and entropic dynamics. The model shows remarkable similarities with the 3+1 formulation of general relativity..."

 

 

 

/Fredrik

[Motor Daddy]

A photograph of an object in motion does not show that object in any specific position. The photo shows the object is NOT in any one place at one "time." Your eyes just aren't good enough to see the "blur."

Edited July 9, 2008 by Motor Daddy

[Klaynos]

A photograph of an object in motion does not show that object in any specific position. The photo shows the object is NOT in any one place at one "time." Your eyes just aren't good enough to see the "blur."

 

The blur is a response of a non-instantaneous exposure. It's not a physical thing...

[Motor Daddy]

The blur is a response of a non-instantaneous exposure. It's not a physical thing...

 

So if a train (or arrow, or Earth etc) is in motion, is it ever in a specific place?

[honestdude14]

Motor Daddy has a good point. Can we really place an absolute value on position or time?

[Kyrisch]

This is the issue philosophised in Zeno's paradox of time with the flying arrow... You should wiki it, the others are pretty fun too. Each has appropriate mathematical/physical resolutions, too.

[ajb]

Motor Daddy has a good point. Can we really place an absolute value on position or time?

 

No, we always need something to measure position and time with respect to. This the starting point of relativity, both Galileian and special relativity.

 

Now, both the above are classical, if we add quantum we also have to think about the uncertainty principle.