Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hallenrm
I remember, that when I was at school, several decades back, I had an accident.
|
As I said, "time is an essential concept introduced into our comprehension of reality to provide for the existence of change in what we know, the past being 'what we know' and the future being 'what we do not know'. "Decades back" is a time reference, a rather rough and inexact reference to "a present" when the past (what you knew) didn't include that accident. The present (at that time) was a change in what you knew (that accident) which was apparently significant to your past (what you know) now (at this present).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hallenrm
I also remember a professor teaching me Quantum mechanics, perhaps a decade later.
|
Again, you are using the concept of time to identify "a present" when "what you knew" changed (you learned some Quantum mechanics).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hallenrm
I also remember that Erwin Schrodinger proposed his wave equation much earlier before I was born.
|
Now seriously, be honest. You don't actually remember Erwin Schrodinger making that proposal do you? I would bet that there existed a change in your knowledge (a specific present) when "what you knew changed". You became aware of the supposed fact that he had made such a proposal and that the time reference placed in the record was "before you were born". In order to make sense of your world view, you placed your mental image of that event in that world view as if an extension of your personal concept of your time references were identical to that of the person who told you or to the person who wrote the book or perhaps Schrodinger himself. This is well known to be an invalid extension.
Think about it for a moment, if this time scale as perceived could be resolved down to the exact accuracy of the best clocks presently available, and you were aware of the exact reading on that clock, it would be fine for allocating the changes in your knowledge (you could theoretically attach a correct time to each and every change in "your knowledge") but it could not be extended to include the time others allocate to their experiences. Not in any exact manner anyway because everyones personal time depends on their path through the universe. If you stay at home and I fly around the world in a supersonic jet, when we get back together, our personal time lines will be slightly out of sync. On an infinitesimal scale, this is true even if you sit in the living room while I go to the bathroom.
This error becomes significant when one gets down to the theoretical level because the theory is presumed to be exactly correct; or else it is just a rough rule of thumb (rough is something to be defined and I can call within a peko-nanosecond "rough" if I wish).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hallenrm
How is the time factor of all these events assimilated in the conception of time proposed by you?  |
I openly accept the fact that time is a concept which can be attached to any complex mechanism and that the concept is very useful for describing the physical behavior of any coherent object; it is a parameter which can describe the changing state of that coherent object. But it is an entirely hypothetical variable used to display evolution of that state and it simply cannot be measured.
If you examine the derivation of my fundamental equation, you will discover that I define what I call a "center of mass system" of reference (the definition is a mathematical definition having to do with the vanishing of a particular differential, see appendix 3). That equation itself defines the parameter time (which is of course only defined in the "center of mass system"). If the "center of mass" systems of two different coherent objects can be regarded as being the same "center of mass" system (which of course cannot actually be as they couldn't be "different" coherent objects) then the evolution parameter describing their behavior can be considered the same and the behavior of each could be described via an identical t. That requirement right there establishes the accuracy of the time scale (exactly how rough the time definition must be in order to make use of the invalid idea that they are both on the same time line).
IF you are going to be so rough in your personal definition of time that a few milliseconds are not significant, then we are all in the same "center of mass system" and we can use any old repetitive system to establish this "rough" measure. So how does my conception assimilate your events? Easy, as long as your measures are rough enough the error is not significant.
Have fun -- Dick
"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous
Re: What is time?
