What is time?

[dkv]

Observation changes the observables... the effect is obvious when we discuss microscopic world. The true postion and momentum can not be known simultaneously similarly true time and energy can not be known at the same time.
And if observation can not guarantee invariant measurement of time in a stationary frame of reference then it is obvious that the time is not a property which remains independent of the nature of observation.
But there is a possibility that an intrinsic time can be associated with every particle in the universe.
Similarly an intrinsic space can be associated with every particle in the universe.
For example a particle with a spin can intrinsically define time similarly a particle with a internal void can intrinsically define space..
If this is true then every particle has its own clock and rod to measure the universe.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by dkv

Observation changes the observables... the effect is obvious when we discuss microscopic world. The true postion and momentum can not be known simultaneously similarly true time and energy can not be known at the same time.
And if observation can not guarantee invariant measurement of time in a stationary frame of reference then it is obvious that the time is not a property which remains independent of the nature of observation.
But there is a possibility that an intrinsic time can be associated with every particle in the universe.
Similarly an intrinsic space can be associated with every particle in the universe.
For example a particle with a spin can intrinsically define time similarly a particle with a internal void can intrinsically define space..
If this is true then every particle has its own clock and rod to measure the universe.

lol. Excellent observation! So all we need to do is identify the smallest particle and it's characteristics will become the standard units of measure. I really like this point of view!

[alexander]

I'm sorry, i was just browsing through some threads, and i came across a post here that sort of put me in the mood, so i decided to stop by and share

Originally Posted by dkv

actually time vanishes as there is an increase in the entropy.

Entropy is an indirect way to show the vector time direction. It is the only quantity, though i would think more in the delta form of it, the change in entropy defines the direction of time in that time frame.

The law says that in an isolated system, the entropy of the universe tends to increases. as wiki so eloquently puts it: "In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world." Entropy does not change time, it will even out the temperature of the universe, but even in this dead state, time continues to be time...

It is fair to say that without time, entropy would not exist, but that is not to say the opposite. Please don't make the mistake simply basing it on reverse logic.


On the topic of "What is time?", to me, it seems like the same type of an open-ended discussion question with no end, as say "What is the meaning of life?" or "What is wrong with scientology?"...

[modest]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Time is our way of understanding and giving meaning to change.

No. Change is how humans think of movement. There is no physics definition of change. If you want to think that change is something fundamental that's happening in our universe then that's fine. But from a physics standpoint it is properly understood as movement. Nothing can change without movement and movement has a precise geometric definition. So nothing is added to the discussion by saying "change". It's nothing more than a human concept that is mathematically defined under a different name.

Please give me a precise definition of change that is more fundamental.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

That implies that all changes have a common cause, a common motive force.

This is why I sometimes dread philosophy. The idea that motion requires a force may give you some philosophical insight. But, what force are you talking about? How does it work? Can we make predictions based on its existence?

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The laws of physics are our identifications of how things act. Whether it's regarding motion or mass or chemical reactions or radioactive decay,

Chemical reactions and radioactive decay are motion.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The ingenuity of man is such that we can work with flawed theories and don't need to change them as long as they work. When they don't work, then we change them. There really isn't much impetus to change when we can work within our current framework.

Well said. It doesn't matter how beautiful your description of reality is. If it doesn't make useful predictions of the future it's worthless.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The problem with lumping all changes together in my previous statement is that there seems to be two kinds of changes that might not be related: changes in material structures and changes in position.

Change in material structure requires movement.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

What if we say that chemical reactions and motion have nothing in common?

Chemical reactions are the rearrangement of atoms and molecules - in other words, they are moving around.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Ok then, what drives chemical reactions? What drives change to take place at the smallest levels? What makes an electron fly around the nucleus of an atom? What is driving that stuff if it isn't time?

"Driving" change is not something I understand.

I will outline this for people who don't see where I'm coming from.

Change is a human concept that describes movement. I can say this confidently because there is no example of change that didn't require movement. Since movement is easier and better defined in physics, I'm sticking with it.

Thus motion requires two things. Space and time. We can graph them:



Someone who says movement is more fundamental than time would have a hard time flipping this around and putting 'movement' in thousands of equations of physics. Time and space are the fundamental dimensions that describe our world. If you want to say something different is the cause of movement they you'll have to rebuild things like relativity on different axioms. Good luck with that.

For now the fundamental units of physics have meaning and power in their ability to predict useful things. It's weird how many people here are willing to say everything that science has ever described and understood might just be wrong because of their intuition about time. Really? Are we rebuilding science from the ground up because you like the word "change" better than "movement" or "movement" better than "time"?

~modest

[Overdog]

I ask everyone to consider the turn this discussion took when it began addressing the question of whether time has objective reality.

It became, at that point, a discussion about what is knowable, not about time or physics.

In that respect, we could just as well have been discussing god here, as time, because the same philosophical argument (we've been discussing) applies equally to both, and for exactly the same reasons.

This same philosophical argument has been used to dismiss claims and/or proofs that god is real. It works equally well for dismissing claims that time is real.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Overdog

I ask everyone to consider the turn this discussion took when it began addressing the question of whether time has objective reality.

It became, at that point, a discussion about what is knowable, not about time or physics.

In that respect, we could just as well have been discussing god here, as time, because the same philosophical argument (we've been discussing) applies equally to both, and for exactly the same reasons.

This same philosophical argument has been used to dismiss claims and/or proofs that god is real. It works equally well for dismissing claims that time is real.

That's a very keen (and sobering) observation, Overdog!

So where do you suggest we go from here?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Modest, I am simply saying that change happens prior to our being aware of it. We make sense out of change and measure it with concepts such as time.

There might indeed be a common cause to all change and I don't for a moment believe it is God. There just might be a single physical phenomena that could be at the bottom of all physical properties and laws.

I am not saying that mathematics doesn't work. It does. I am not saying that without concepts of time and space our understanding of existence would have meaning, it wouldn't.

What I am saying is that by considering time and space as fundamental drivers involved in the fabric of existence, we might be blinding ourselves to truth which is below the level of our current understanding.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by freeztar

That's a very keen (and sobering) observation, Overdog!

So where do you suggest we go from here?

Well, I would suggest that anyone who is clinging to an assertion that time has objective reality do as I did when faced with a proof I could not refute, abandon the assertion.

Else refute the proof that says knowledge of unobservable phenomenon is impossible, or show how time is in fact observable.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Well, I would suggest that anyone who is clinging to an assertion that time has objective reality do as I did when faced with a proof I could not refute, abandon the assertion.

Else refute the proof that says knowledge of unobservable phenomenon is impossible, or show how time is in fact observable.

No axiom can be proven with direct observation. That doesn’t mean we should assume all axioms are false.

Any real system needs time to be completely and properly described. No real system need god to be completely and properly described. So even though we cannot test the axiom of time “under the microscope” we do have extensive evidence of its reality - opposed to god.

So, no, you don't have to "abandon the assertion" of any and all axioms.

~modest

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by modest

No axiom can be proven with direct observation. That doesn’t mean we should assume all axioms are false.

Any real system needs time to be completely and properly described. No real system need god to be completely and properly described. So even though we cannot test the axiom of time “under the microscope” we do have extensive evidence of its reality - opposed to god.

So, no, you don't have to "abandon the assertion" of any and all axioms.

~modest

No, you don't have to abandon it. You can believe it on Faith. But continuing to argue it is real, while avoiding the question "How do you know?" begins to sound a bit religious.

EDIT:

I'm not saying we should assume the axiom is false, I'm asking how you know it's real.

Edit Further clarification:

Also I'm not saying "Abandon the Axiom", I'm saying abandon the claim to knowledge.