north Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 is that not what time is all about ? just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) is that not what time is all about ? just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ? For starters, how about you lay your cards on the table and make a clear proposition? If you have a philosophy about time, tell us and back it up with links, if you have some. If you have a proposed definition, an answer to the question "What is time?", then state it clearly. Again, you are welcome to back it up with links if you can. In other words, make a positive declaration. Let the rest of us ask you questions about your time concept, if we choose. Let's see how that goes. I'll put that as a direct question, north. Take your best shot: what is time? Edited January 24, 2009 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markus.dnd Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think i get what he means. If time is movement of an object and relative, how can there be constant in speed wich is measured by time and distance? I have had question like this aswell... Google says that: Time is... an instance or single occasion for some event; "this time he succeeded"; "he called four times"; "he could do ten at a clip" a period of time considered as a resource under your control and sufficient to accomplish something; "take time to smell the roses"; "I didn't have time to finish"; "it took more than half my time" an indefinite period (usually marked by specific attributes or activities); "he waited a long time"; "the time of year for planting"; "he was a great actor in his time" a suitable moment; "it is time to go" the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past clock: measure the time or duration of an event or action or the person who performs an action in a certain period of time; "he clocked the runners" a person's experience on a particular occasion; "he had a time holding back the tears"; "they had a good time together" assign a time for an activity or event; "The candidate carefully timed his appearance at the disaster scene" clock time: a reading of a point in time as given by a clock; "do you know what time it is?"; "the time is 10 o'clock" set the speed, duration, or execution of; "we time the process to manufacture our cars very precisely" fourth dimension: the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event regulate or set the time of; "time the clock" meter: rhythm as given by division into parts of equal duration adjust so that a force is applied and an action occurs at the desired time; "The good player times his swing so as to hit the ball squarely" prison term: the period of time a prisoner is imprisoned; "he served a prison term of 15 months"; "his sentence was 5 to 10 years"; "he is doing time in the county jail" And oon we go. Anyways. Science daily says that it comes out in a motion (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050415115227.htm) but in that case... well. i still dont get all of the time consept. I hope it is like something the question that north had only little more clear. And yes. it could be named as: What is time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Is that supposed to be an arrow in the thread title, or a "greater than" symbol? Actual sentences would help North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [Originally Posted by north] is that not what time is all about ? just the measurement of movement(s) by objects ? For starters, how about you lay your cards on the table and make a clear proposition? If you have a philosophy about time, tell us and back it up with links, if you have some. If you have a proposed definition, an answer to the question "What is time?", then state it clearly. Again, you are welcome to back it up with links if you can. In other words, make a positive declaration. Let the rest of us ask you questions about your time concept, if we choose. Let's see how that goes. I'll put that as a direct question, north. Take your best shot: what is time? time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects Edited January 25, 2009 by north Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minus_Ph Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 This thread follows a thought experiment I just completed. If time were to be motion in a Cartesian coordinate, then the cosmic speed limit of C as proposed by Einstein would include that motion. As such the effects of relativity on space time might be nothing more than the bounding of the vector of all motion in 4D space to C. Unfortunately I do not possess the math skills to see if the equations of relativity say just that. How about it? Or am I just trying to oversimplify things again to get them to fit into my little head. ~minus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Swansont is the guy I turn to for things like this, his knowledge of time is far far greater than mine. And I've seen him argue many times, that no, time is not the measurement of motion. If you consider a modern atomic clock you don't measure motion but oscillations between states. He'll hopefully post a correction/clarification to this shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 Swansont is the guy I turn to for things like this, his knowledge of time is far far greater than mine. And I've seen him argue many times, that no, time is not the measurement of motion. If you consider a modern atomic clock you don't measure motion but oscillations between states. He'll hopefully post a correction/clarification to this shortly. and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minus_Ph Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess. I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement. Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension? ~minus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? As I understand it, no. They are oscillations in states. There is a thread with a similar name to this around with alot of replies from swansont explaining this nicely... I can't seem to find it right now though :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 [Originally Posted by north] and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess. how so ? I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement. change without movement ? how Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension? ~minus NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minus_Ph Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 [Originally Posted by north] and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess. how so ? Spin is an attribute not a motion. I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement. change without movement ? how Wave function change Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension? ~minus NO Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [Originally Posted by north]and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess. how so ? Spin is an attribute not a motion. spin is a movement regardless I believe that Isomeric Transformation changes in nuclei can happen without movement. change without movement ? how Wave function change and what caused this change in wave function ? Well at least only movement in wave function... is that a dimension? ~minus NO Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain. explain further Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedlook no matter what atomic clock you talk of , caesium or ammonia there is movement involved on which time is based Edited January 25, 2009 by north Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minus_Ph Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post [Originally Posted by north] and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess. how so ? Spin is an attribute not a motion. spin is a movement regardless Then it should have precession.... NO? Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain. explain further Wave function is a quantized set of mutually exclusive states... they might as well be location in some very small quantized direction, thus the Paulii exclusion principle could be nothing more than "no two physical objects can occupy the same place at the same time" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 26, 2009 Author Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post [Originally Posted by north] and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? Originally Posted by minus_Ph View Post That question is like asking if the spin attribute of sub atomic particles precess. how so ? Spin is an attribute not a motion. spin is a movement regardless Then it should have precession.... NO? before .. yes Wave function could be a dimension that is quantized at a level that includes it largest dimension ... too many possibilities for my little brain. explain further Wave function is a quantized set of mutually exclusive states... they might as well be location in some very small quantized direction, thus the Paulii exclusion principle could be nothing more than "no two physical objects can occupy the same place at the same time" well of course Paulii said this it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space by the way minus_Ph use "quote" in front of a quote and response in square brackets [] and / in front of [] quote in the end of the quote or response it makes your responses much more clear Edited January 26, 2009 by north Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minus_Ph Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 well of course Paulii said this it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space Actually unless a sub atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time... time it has everything to do with wave functions. And thus my hidden dimension explanation is plausible, although quite unlikely. I just like to look for simple reasons for all unusual behavior. ~minus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 26, 2009 Author Share Posted January 26, 2009 [Originally Posted by north] well of course Paulii said this it has nothing to do with time but all to do with space Actually unless a sub atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time... time it has everything to do with wave functions.And thus my hidden dimension explanation is plausible, although quite unlikely. I just like to look for simple reasons for all unusual behavior. ~minus correction , about Paulii , it has not only to do with space but also about the object its not about time of whether a sub-atomic particle can occupy two wave functions at the same time , it is about the the object its self too your last statement time is ABOUT behavior , movement but NOT the essence of the cause of this behavior this is why movement(s) by object(s) is more fundamental to the understanding of any interactions between objects time explains the consequences , the behaviour , but not the fundamental why(s) !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects north, I am glad to see your offer of a flat-out definition of time, in reply to the question "What is time?" I see that for you motion (and interaction) are prior to time, in the sense that time is a "consequence" which means something that follows from. For the moment, I will keep my comment to a minimum and for the moment simply thank you for coming out with an explicit statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 26, 2009 Author Share Posted January 26, 2009 [Originally Posted by north] time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects north, I am glad to see your offer of a flat-out definition of time, in reply to the question "What is time?" I see that for you motion (and interaction) are prior to time,in the sense that time is a "consequence" which means something that follows from. actually rather than motion , I still perfer movement For the moment, I will keep my comment to a minimum and for the moment simply thank you for coming out with an explicit statement. your welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 and the oscillations are not caused by movement atomically ? The oscillations are because the atom is in a coherent superposition of states — the oscillation is between the states, and you could describe that as a single state if you chose to. You can't tie any of that back to anything like a classical trajectory of an electron. (In microwave clocks these states are spin orientations of an electron) "Motion" really isn't well-defined here; it's a classical notion, and this is QM. My view on this is that "time is motion" is metaphysical, as is any "nature of time" argument. You can't get rid of motion, or stop time, to actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 26, 2009 Author Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) The oscillations are because the atom is in a coherent superposition of states — the oscillation is between the states, and you could describe that as a single state if you chose to. You can't tie any of that back to anything like a classical trajectory of an electron. (In microwave clocks these states are spin orientations of an electron) "Motion" really isn't well-defined here; it's a classical notion, and this is QM. yet neither ammonia or caesium atomic clocks work without movement My view on this is that "time is motion" is metaphysical this definition of time as " time is motion " is inadequate time is the measurement of the consequence of movement(s) by object(s) and their interaction(s) as is any "nature of time" argument. You can't get rid of motion, or stop time you can't get rid of movement but you can get rid of time can the introduction of time , in and of its self , to a vehicle , cause the vehicle to move ? to actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion? NO because actually the faster the object goes, movement , the less time it takes for the object to get there , Naturally if I have a lawn mower , and a Mustang and they both have to cover a mile , what do you think will cover this distance faster ? need I say what will ? Edited January 26, 2009 by north Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 (edited) time is nothing more than the consequence of the measurement of the movement(s) , within the object , the movement(s) interaction(s) between objects time is the measurement of the consequence of movement(s) by object(s) and their interaction(s) You now have two definitions on the table, north. Which one do you claim is right? "the consequences of the measurement" or "the measurement of the consequences" Btw I think it's possible for people to use deliberate ambiguity and inconsistency as a kind of flypaper----sticky bait to attract people into shift-wall mazes of controversy. Sort of the same way that conventional trolls use hostile contradiction---except that ambiguity is smarter and softer. So now I'm wondering was I intentionally suckered in by that transposition of CoM into MoC? Let's assume not. Let's assume the switch was accidental. Which definition do you say is right? Edited January 26, 2009 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 yet neither ammonia or caesium atomic clocks work without movement Atomic clocks do not require movement of the atoms. In fact, since this introduces error, the efforts over the years has been to reduce the movement to get better precision and accuracy. Ideally you'd eliminate the center-of-mass motion altogether, if that were possible. this definition of time as " time is motion " is inadequate It wasn't a definition, per se. It was a classification of discussions about time. you can't get rid of movement but you can get rid of time can the introduction of time , in and of its self , to a vehicle , cause the vehicle to move ? How do you get rid of time? Or introduce time to something? NO because actually the faster the object goes, movement , the less time it takes for the object to get there , Naturally if I have a lawn mower , and a Mustang and they both have to cover a mile , what do you think will cover this distance faster ? need I say what will ? Speed is dx/dt By definition you must have displacement and a time interval for there to be motion. You can't separate the two. However, you can have something sit there, approximately at rest, and still have the passage of time. Which is why I think this is metaphysics and semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted January 28, 2009 Author Share Posted January 28, 2009 You now have two definitions on the table, north. Which one do you claim is right?"the consequences of the measurement" or "the measurement of the consequences" measurement of the consequences is right Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedto actually test anything. Doesn't the realization that time slows down for a fast-moving object actually argue against time being based on motion? is not actually prove the opposite ? is it not then that the object controls time ? rather than time in and of its self controls the time the object takes ? it seems that it is the object that controls time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 is not actually prove the opposite ? is it not then that the object controls time ? rather than time in and of its self controls the time the object takes ? it seems that it is the object that controls time How do you distinguish that from "some physical laws dictate both time and movement?" Correlation is not proof of causality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now