Is 'time' a measurable variable?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

It turns out that, in such a picture, time is not a measurable variable (and use of clocks to define time yield what is refered to as the twin paradox); however, the behavior of clocks ends up being exactly the same as what is seen in Einstein’s picture.



Have fun -- Dick

Much of this debate is far beyond my scope of learning, nevertheless, I find this question of measurable time to be very interesting indeed. Having no credentials myself to either support or deny your positions, I still find myself viewing the character of time differently after examining your attempt to define these positions for the rest of us. Let me just ask one question for varification if I may? Does the second law of thermodynamics and it's relationship to the question of entropy equate in some respect to what you're trying to explain for us? Like time, entropy has a direction and like time, entropy is only the course within which change takes place. The pace at which change occurs can and does vary enormously irrelevent of how we define the time which passes between events. Are you then saying that the character of time then make the measure of it somewhat misleading?........Infy

[Erasmus00]

[quote=Doctordick;139882]No, my position is that the idea of quantum field theory is based on the quantization of field theories. This places preeminence on the field theories.

I hold that quantum theory, properly developed, is the correct approach. Field theories are only approximations and thus quantization of fields is simply the wrong attack. After the universal success of quantum theory, I am astonished with the common presumption that something else is more fundamental. But that’s just an opinion.

I believe you are confused sir. Quantum field theory is merely the relativistic extension of quantum mechanics. Also, mant of the "universal successes" of quantum theory are actually from extensions of quantizing fields.

I don't understand, for instance, why you would suggest that Maxwell's equations (a field theory) are approximations, and hence we shouldn't try to quantize electricity/magnetism? Is that the implication I'm supposed to be reading?

Certainly in condensed matter some field are approximate (often the result of taking a lattice spacing to 0 as a limit). However, there are obviously fundamental fields (the forementioned electricity/magnetism).
-Will

[KickAssClown]

I have only had precissious little time to review this thread but something caught me. DD describes massless interactions, and the idea of mass as something other than a fundamental property, to the effect of [pseudo-math]m = kt[/pseudo-math], or similar. Where mass drops out of the model.

This is simply astounding to me, as I have been examining the whole of physics piece by piece for quite sometime now and have come to the conclusion that the difficulties faced by Quantum Physics and Relative Physics lies within the definition of mass.

I am going to take this week to read through all of DD's work, as I think I know of an area in which DD's model becomes less contentious. As DD has expressed his model is a geometric model and as I have expressed before the question to my answer is a geometric model. This combined with the Poincare conjecture and Geometrization Conjecture should combined well into a description of three to four fundamental qualities and quantities. Of which I lack the mathematical prowess to express. charge , Distance (difference of position of points), Time, and spin.

DD, Your genius and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

This thread is a Drawing links: Matter, Mass-energy, Space-time, and the Geometric Universe Candidate

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

You misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is that, if you take into account the difference between "time" and "what clocks measure" in a careful and logical way, the difficulty with the problems between QM and GR simply vanish.

I agree with you on that one Doctordick.

Time is merely a 'duration' with identical durations in a continuum becoming 'units' of time. As any type of clock, atomic or otherwise, is effected by its 'relative' physical circumstances, the durations of the units can vary greatly due to the changes of the physical circumstances of the measuring device.

The error is merely the inability of mechanical devices to be consistent, independently, with 'absolute' time in varying physical circumstances.

[Doctordick]

Hi Will,

I was trying to find a post I wanted to reference in my answer to Bombadil when I ran across your post to “Is 'time' a measurable variable?” to which I had failed to respond. I apologize for my failure.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

I believe you are confused sir. Quantum field theory is merely the relativistic extension of quantum mechanics. Also, many of the "universal successes" of quantum theory are actually from extensions of quantizing fields.

I don't disagree with this at all. Essentially, what I was trying to express was the fact that quantum mechanics was fallen upon by accident via analysis of relationships discovered within the classical study of what is called Hamiltonian mechanics. That is to say quantum mechanics was a “postulated” theory, not a deduced theory (which it is in my analysis).

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

I don't understand, for instance, why you would suggest that Maxwell's equations (a field theory) are approximations, and hence we shouldn't try to quantize electricity/magnetism? Is that the implication I'm supposed to be reading?

No, that is certainly not the implication I am asserting. What you must understand is that I am deriving quantum mechanics from fundamental principals, not from physical experiments. When I do that, I discover that Maxwell's equations are an approximation to my fundamental equation: i.e., the correct quantum mechanical relationships are not to be deduced from quantization of the electro-magnetic fields of Maxwell's equation but rather that the electro-magnetic fields are properly to be deduced from the my fundamental equation itself. And I will show you exactly how that can be done.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Certainly in condensed matter some field are approximate (often the result of taking a lattice spacing to 0 as a limit). However, there are obviously fundamental fields (the forementioned electricity/magnetism).

And I am saying that the electro-magnetic fields are approximations and not fundamental at all.

Likewise, any field theory is a postulated theory and not a deduced consequence thus quantization of a field theory has no bearing at all on what I am doing. What you need to show is that you are aware of something which can not be deduced from my fundamental equation. If that be the case, then you have something fundamental; however, I am aware of no such thing. Being unaware does not mean that no such thing exists but, from what I have already been able to deduce, I suspect very strongly that "field theory" is not a rational starting point and, if we ever get into actually discussing the extent of what I have discovered (rather than concentrating on the value of looking at my work) I will show you exactly why I have those doubts.

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Hello Gentlemen,

I thought I'd come back briefly and dip my toe back into this discussion.
As change occurs and one moment leads into the next, a reference frame is created in a conscious mind aware of the change.

This could be said to be the definition of consciousness.

But outside of a conscious mind viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists. Only snapshots of what is current.

I think it's critical to realize that change is an internal construct. As is motion. As is Time. We project these mental 'existents' into existence and commit a fundamental mistake.

I guess my point here is that if time actually is just an internal construct, something else is driving change. Because I am not saying that change doesn't take place, I'm disputing its cause.

Just thought I'd leave that in the pool.

Cheers,

steve

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

As change occurs and one moment leads into the next, a reference frame is created in a conscious mind aware of the change.

Or, it could be seen as a change in what one thought comprised reality. There is an interesting phenomena which occurs quite readily in the conscious comprehension of most everyone: the repeated occurrence of expected phenomena usually leads to the event being ignored. Essentially, what impacts our conscious awareness is those things which are unexpected.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

This could be said to be the definition of consciousness.

No, this could be said to be the definition of “awareness”.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

But outside of a conscious mind viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists.

The change you describe can only occur when the events of the past are identified with those newly experienced events: i.e., the newly experienced events are somewhat altered from the events they are presumed to be identified with.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Only snapshots of what is current.

Or more important, snapshots of issues which are different from what existed in the past: i.e., what is known.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I think it's critical to realize that change is an internal construct. As is motion. As is Time. We project these mental 'existents' into existence and commit a fundamental mistake.

With this comment I very much agree.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I guess my point here is that if time actually is just an internal construct, something else is driving change. Because I am not saying that change doesn't take place, I'm disputing its cause.

Is “cause” the real issue here? Or is it really a mechanism which allows us to identify events of the past (that which we know) with events of the present (the changes in what we know). What one must realize is the fact that the central issue of all this caca is the existence of a perception which seems to make sense (i.e., a mental view which resolves into an internally consistent picture).

I think you are very close to comprehending the issues I am confronting.

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

This could be said to be the definition of consciousness.

DD

No, this could be said to be the definition of “awareness”.

Ok. I agree with that. Consciousness would be a special form of awareness then. Perhaps an awareness of self?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

But outside of a conscious mind viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists.

DD:

The change you describe can only occur when the events of the past are identified with those newly experienced events: i.e., the newly experienced events are somewhat altered from the events they are presumed to be identified with.

I need to take baby steps here. Perhaps I should have said, "But outside of an awareness viewing the change or rather, the state of the current moment compared to a previous moment captured in memory, no change exists". An event is triggered by a change in state and by some sort of value tag to one of the objects 'in frame'. That also implies that awareness, by definition, has the ability to form objects from the data stream. That also implies a consciousness at work (with respect to the value tag). Objects would be persistent patterns. Value would be assigned to the important ones. Value implies a sense of self. A change to a tagged object would generate an event. (just thinking out loud here so you can see the structure, or lack of it, that i've got)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Only snapshots of what is current.

DD:

Or more important, snapshots of issues which are different from what existed in the past: i.e., what is known.

Sorry to be stuck here. 'Issues' has me confused, unless it's similar to what I described above. Hmmm. Your use of the word 'issue' might mean 'that which is generated'. And the use of the work 'important' carries 'value' with it. So maybe we are talking the same thing.

[Rade]

Doctordick, I have some questions about the OP question--sorry if you have already provided answers but it is a long and convoluted thread at this point.

It would appear that you find what clocks to measure to be 'tau' (real and proper time), a fourth dimension of space related to (x,y,z) deduced from the presentation of your fundamental equation.

If so, we still have "time" as a fifth dimension in your model and your OP post question was, 'Is time a measurable thing" so I take it that you refer to this fifth dimension concept of time that you are asking about--and not 'tau', since tau is a measurable thing--it is what clocks measure.

So, what is this 'time' as a fifth dimension in your presentation ? As I understand it, time in your deduction is an imaginary mental variable that brings order to change in information.

If so, would it be correct to say that you would find it to be true that time, as you define it within your five dimension model, would be a measurable variable in the form of the amount of quantum energy of work required (in the mind) to perform the function of changing information of what you know (the past) to what you do not know (the future) within 'the present" ?

That is, can we not say that time can be measured by a delta energy function related to change in variety of information content at any moment. Thus, the answer to your OP question is yes, but not for the reason most would assume.