Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?

[Amplituhedron]

Yes, well... the past, present and future cannot just exist side by side, without believing the past and future are misnomers for just other present moments. While this could be true, I would never look too deep into it because sometimes physics can chase idea's like ghosts to over-simplify the dynamic structure around us.

 

If you consider Minkowski spacetime, every spacetime event is designated by four coordinates: three of space and one of time.

 

With respect to space, no one has any problem with the idea that “here” is an indexical — i.e., a point of view. “Here” is where I am. But I acknowledge that there are other “heres”, it is just that, from my point of view, I call them “theres.”

 

If Minkowski spacetime is real, as opposed to a mathematical model, then what is true for space, must be true for time as well. What I call “now” is when I happen to find myself. But, just as with space, I can acknowledge that there are other extant “nows” relative to me, only I call them “earlier” and “later.”

 

If we return to Einstein’s original relativistic train though experiment, it seems we have powerful evidence that the future must exist, relative to our own present. The rider on the train sees the lightning flash first at the front of the train, but sometime later, in his/her own future, sees the lightning flash at the back of the train. Meanwhile, the observer on the ground has seen both flashes simultaneously.

 

What are we to conclude? Although the rider on the train doesn’t it know it yet, he/she is guaranteed, sometime later, to see a lightning flash at the back of the train. The conclusion seems inescapable: The future is not open. It is just as fixed as the past.

[Dubbelosix]

If you consider Minkowski spacetime, every spacetime event is designated by four coordinates: three of space and one of time.

 

With respect to space, no one has any problem with the idea that “here” is an indexical — i.e., a point of view. “Here” is where I am. But I acknowledge that there are other “heres”, it is just that, from my point of view, I call them “theres.”

 

If Minkowski spacetime is real, as opposed to a mathematical model, then what is true for space, must be true for time as well. What I call “now” is when I happen to find myself. But, just as with space, I can acknowledge that there are other extant “nows” relative to me, only I call them “earlier” and “later.”

 

If we return to Einstein’s original relativistic train though experiment, it seems we have powerful evidence that the future must exist, relative to our own present. The rider on the train sees the lightning flash first at the front of the train, but sometime later, in his/her own future, sees the lightning flash at the back of the train. Meanwhile, the observer on the ground has seen both flashes simultaneously.

 

What are we to conclude? Although the rider on the train doesn’t it know it yet, he/she is guaranteed, sometime later, to see a lightning flash at the back of the train. The conclusion seems inescapable: The future is not open. It is just as fixed as the past.

 

Events in spacetime can happen for different observers, this is known as simulteneity. No one disputes this, but what it means essentially at the core is that there is no preferred frame of reference, when it comes to moving observers.

 

Since everything is in motion, we need to redefine a two body problem into a three body problem in which you are at rest relative to the Earth.

[Mattzy]

If you use a history of positions, you are employing a concept of time. 

Yes, a human concept. I'm not saying that I don't have a problem. I just can't give this concept a name and accept it as fact when I can't define it.

It's interesting that you talked of positive and negative numbers. That got me thinking because numbers are also uniquely human notation - as I suspect time is. 

Both are instrumental in the human mode of operation. They may be used at lower levels by other life forms - as 006 has said - which suggests genetic origin by random mutation - a useful tool.

[Mattzy]

Without time there could not be such a thing as musical pitch. 

Good point exchemist. But it goes to my problem of what is between the beats of a clock. It's the same question. What is between the pressure waves of sound?

It just occurred to me that there is absence. If we have a comparative reference frequency in our internal brain clock, then we can measure the absence of events.

So if the pressure wave at the ear is a recorded and memorised event, and we have a small number count between events, then we hear a high frequency. The highest frequency that we can hear tells us what our processing capacity is - or some other limitation - maybe mechanical.

This is not time, this is a ratio of event to absence. I reason here that life forms use regular frequencies and time has evolved in our minds.

What is between the beats? Answer: Nothing that we are concerned with for that task ie. hearing.

If there are a billion beats and nothing is detected then we have a billion beats recorded and a sense of a long time. But that sense is purely human. The universe has simply existed as matter and energy.

I think I can adjust to that acceptance as logical - until I'm convinced otherwise.

[Mattzy]

No time is not just a human conception, all animals run with chronological cycles. This gene is not specific to us alone.

This fits with the idea that time is a concept born of genetics and is at various levels of evolution depending on the species. I'll go along with that.

[Dubbelosix]

This fits with the idea that time is a concept born of genetics and is at various levels of evolution depending on the species. I'll go along with that.

 

In physics, it so much more than a human conception. Things with ''mass'' experience time. Without time, we have no concept of curvature as a manifested observable in three dimensional space. In physics, time is an inherent and intrinsic property of the quantization of space (Planck time). So no, I would not say genetics gave rise to time, it already existed before we had a concept of it.

[exchemist]

Good point exchemist. But it goes to my problem of what is between the beats of a clock. It's the same question. What is between the pressure waves of sound?

It just occurred to me that there is absence. If we have a comparative reference frequency in our internal brain clock, then we can measure the absence of events.

So if the pressure wave at the ear is a recorded and memorised event, and we have a small number count between events, then we hear a high frequency. The highest frequency that we can hear tells us what our processing capacity is - or some other limitation - maybe mechanical.

This is not time, this is a ratio of event to absence. I reason here that life forms use regular frequencies and time has evolved in our minds.

What is between the beats? Answer: Nothing that we are concerned with for that task ie. hearing.

If there are a billion beats and nothing is detected then we have a billion beats recorded and a sense of a long time. But that sense is purely human. The universe has simply existed as matter and energy.

I think I can adjust to that acceptance as logical - until I'm convinced otherwise.

But if you say it "has" existed, you are speaking of the past being something real. This again, like the succession of beats that make up a musical pitch, is something that requires that time is real.   

[Dubbelosix]

The only definition of time, we know for sure, the present moment by its truest definition. If anything breaks out of a present moment and is able to dilate time, then yes, time has real effects and it shouldn't be ignored. The past is something always behind and the future is like grasping to a present moment that just feels like it right round the corner. Succession, as Exchemist says, requires a notion of time. Two clocks synchronised then placed into gravitational fields, will always detect the one in the gravitational field ''as having slowed down.'' This requires a frame of reference to compare to another - which means change does happen and wherever a change exists, must in my opinion, involve a concept of how clocks tick. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

As Hestenes has rightly figured, energy is a frequency (but to it I add may not sufficient to explain time), in which energy is a ''diffused mass''

 

[math]E = \hbar \omega[/math]

 

Only matter can act as sufficient clocks, hence why mass is an energy (concentrated energy),

 

[math]E = mc^2[/math]

 

By binding the two we realize that mass is also a frequency, first observed by DeBroglie;

 

[math]\omega = \frac{mc^2}{\hbar}[/math]

 

Such that a mass has a periodic function

 

[math]\Psi(t) = e^{i \omega t}[/math]

 

It is this periodic function which can slow down - an atom can be replaced with the notion of a clock so long as we can detect a change in the system. It becomes fuzzy with particles like a photon because relativity states time no longer exists because the photon itself has no frame of reference, but to an observer on Earth, it certainly does take some time for a photon to leave the sun and reach Earth because stated quite simply, we have a frame of reference in which to apply that to.

[Dubbelosix]

And, for any matter, the periodic function may change, it can slow down, it can even stretch. This is the wonderful yet complicated world of relativity. It doesn't mean however an atom cannot decay, it just means that its periodic function can change indicating a longer life time (see experiments on Muons). There is a way however to make sure an atom may not decay and that requires a very subtle but accurate way in which we use other particles, like light for instance, to interact with the atom in such a way that it can theoretically remain infinitely stable! Do it the wrong way though and you can in fact speed up the process of its decay (the Zeno and anti-Zeno effect).

[sluggo]

exchemist#143;

 

It seems to me that once you get to this level, everything is "in the mind", so one might just as well redefine reality to be what is "in the mind", since otherwise we cannot function in the world at all.

 

[Perception is reality confined to the mind, but not all reality.

I have used the examples of ‘motion pictures’ and display screens to show the mental processing of sequential events as motion where there is no motion.

The Einstein train is another ‘trajectory' example. On the train an object drops vertically to the floor, while a platform observer describes its path as curved. How can one object have multiple paths? 

The reason is observer dependent. On the train the object has acquired the speed of the train. The observer on the platform has not.]

 

I think the notion that motion and change are illusions is a useless idea, leading to absurd results

 

.

 

[Lack of consideration of perception is one of the problems leading to protesters claiming the the results are illogical.]

Edited June 25, 2019 by sluggo

[Dubbelosix]

Time is not reserved for us, what part of the periodic function of matter did you not understand? Also, we are not special in terms of ''observers'' as it has been loosely applied in sci-pop books.

[Mattzy]

In physics, it so much more than a human conception. Things with ''mass'' experience time. Without time, we have no concept of curvature as a manifested observable in three dimensional space. In physics, time is an inherent and intrinsic property of the quantization of space (Planck time). So no, I would not say genetics gave rise to time, it already existed before we had a concept of it.

  'Things with ''mass'' experience time.'

Experience ? That is memory, which is animal. Mass has no experience. Mass can't be tricked. Only animals can be tricked - with false concepts.

 

"Without time, we have no concept of curvature as a...….." 

The concept of time has evolved as a useful tool for human thinking and operations (your brain clock that you mentioned supports this idea). If the concept is an imaginary device, then we should be careful about any conclusions we draw from its use.

The atomic clocks that have been proved to slow are dependent on motion. I am thinking that perhaps motion has slowed motion.

[Mattzy]

The only definition of time, we know for sure, the present moment by its truest definition. If anything breaks out of a present moment and is able to dilate time, then yes, time has real effects and it shouldn't be ignored. The past is something always behind and the future is like grasping to a present moment that just feels like it right round the corner. Succession, as Exchemist says, requires a notion of time. Two clocks synchronised then placed into gravitational fields, will always detect the one in the gravitational field ''as having slowed down.'' This requires a frame of reference to compare to another - which means change does happen and wherever a change exists, must in my opinion, involve a concept of how clocks tick. 

  "The past is something always behind and the future is like grasping to a present moment that just feels like it right round the corner. Succession, as Exchemist says, requires a notion of time."

 

This sounds like my argument for human difficulty in eliminating the nagging concept of time. The word "concept" keeps coming up, and "notion".

 

 Two clocks synchronised then placed into gravitational fields, will always detect the one in the gravitational field ''as having slowed down.''

 

I know that you don't really mean this. If we make two simple clocks, you aren't saying we have accidently made two clock detectors?  Of course you aren't. You are saying that if you move one relative to the other then they will de-synchronise. This is proved by good experiment. But your feeling of detection is the human condition. The fact is that there has been movement and de-synchronisation. This includes the movement of the clock mechanics - including the atomic clocks. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the light clock requires no mass. That also slows. But as you say - in other posts - movement is always required, to maintain counting.

So I ask: Could movement of the clock be slowing movement of its workings? This would eliminate the need for any concept of time.

[Mattzy]

But if you say it "has" existed, you are speaking of the past being something real. This again, like the succession of beats that make up a musical pitch, is something that requires that time is real.   

I am believing in existence without past or future. It is you that is believing in existence with past and future. In my humble opinion, things just happen. This is the interaction of mass and energy. Everything is just happening right now and I don't think there can be any duration to it. I don't believe there was a beginning to it, nor can there be an end to it in any dimension either but that doesn't mean time, just infinite existence. exchemist, your past and future are inconceivable to me. It seems we have reached an impasse - for the time being!! Ha-ha.

[exchemist]

I am believing in existence without past or future. It is you that is believing in existence with past and future. In my humble opinion, things just happen. This is the interaction of mass and energy. Everything is just happening right now and I don't think there can be any duration to it. I don't believe there was a beginning to it, nor can there be an end to it in any dimension either but that doesn't mean time, just infinite existence. exchemist, your past and future are inconceivable to me. It seems we have reached an impasse - for the time being!! Ha-ha.

If we "have reached" an impasse, that means at one point in time we had not, but now, later, we have. 

[Dubbelosix]

I am believing in existence without past or future. It is you that is believing in existence with past and future. In my humble opinion, things just happen.

 

 

You're both right. Memory assures us that there is an existence co-dependant with an intelligent recording device. The existence of the present would not happen, without a concept of past or present. Consciousness is dependant on all these factors.