Science Forums

# Defining Time

## Recommended Posts

There have been many post here and elsewhere concerning Time and if it is the fourth dimension or merely perceived by us to determine how old we are getting.

But there is a clear definition of Time and it is my view that from this definition, Time should be view not as an additional dimension, but rather as the foundation on which we define all other dimensions.

From Maxwell's work with electromagnetic fields we are given the equation to calculate the speed of light based on the properties of free space

Maxwell calculated that the speed of light was inversely proportional to square root of the Permeability and Permittivity of free space.

C = √ 1 / µ οε ο

Using the equation speed = distance / time, would define Time as being the product of µ ο and ε ο

Permeability is the ability to allow the passage of one media through another, while Permittivity determines how much or at what rate this takes place.

Now since Maxwell was working with electromagnetic forces, the permeability and permittivity was to do with the magnetic fields, or in other words, photons.

So, based on this, Time is defined by the rate at which photons can permeate free space.

##### Share on other sites

Permeability is the ability to allow the passage of one media through another, while Permittivity determines how much or at what rate this takes place.

Now since Maxwell was working with electromagnetic forces, the permeability and permittivity was to do with the magnetic fields, or in other words, photons.

So, based on this, Time is defined by the rate at which photons can permeate free space.

I followed you until here.

Permeability mu0 is specifically with magnetic fields and Permittivity nu0 is with electric fields.

Time defined simply as such implies to be independent of observer. By relativity it is know not to be. The

speed of light in free space is fixed, the passage of time wrt to an observer is not a fixed rate. Here the I

becomes important. :hyper:

##### Share on other sites

In the words of Carl Sagan, "Time is resistant to simple definition."

Amen.

##### Share on other sites

I followed you until here.

Permeability mu0 is specifically with magnetic fields and Permittivity nu0 is with electric fields.

Time defined simply as such implies to be independent of observer. By relativity it is know not to be. The

speed of light in free space is fixed, the passage of time wrt to an observer is not a fixed rate. Here the I

becomes important. :hyper:

It's simple Take a look at my post here:

and time is definite. hence the speed of light. it's distance that isn't.

##### Share on other sites

Webfeet

The question here might be one of cause and effect.

Can the permeability and permittivity of free space can be defined and measured WITHOUT reference to C? If not we have to consider the possibility that these constants are the product of C and something else which is independent of C. In that case they will not define C at all. C will be defining them.

I am playing devils advocate here. It could be you are on to something.

##### Share on other sites

Time defined simply as such implies to be independent of observer.

For there to be a fundemental definition of Time, it would have to be independant of observer.

By relativity it is know not to be. The

speed of light in free space is fixed, the passage of time wrt to an observer is not a fixed rate. Here the I becomes important.

With respect to Relativity, whether general or special. you have additional factors that need to be taken account of, be they velocity or gravitation fields. Here your frame of reference is relevant. For the definiton of Time, there need be no view point.

Can the permeability and permittivity of free space can be defined and measured WITHOUT reference to C? If not we have to consider the possibility that these constants are the product of C and something else which is independent of C. In that case they will not define C at all. C will be defining them.

It is possible that the answer is circular.

What if there is no something else, but that all we are dealing with here is energy and how it permeates through free space. Permittivity and Permeability may be two sides of the same coin.

As with gases, there more gas you try to contain within a volume, the less permeable the volume becomes. If you increase the pressure in the volume sufficiently, you will alter the volumes state from gas to liquid and eventually solid. Each step decreasing the permeability.

If free space and energy work in a similar fashion, then the more energy contained within a volume, the less permeable it becomes. After all, gases at their fundemental level are only energy.

This would imply that any fluctuation in permeability would result in a variation in the speed of light. We are reasonably confident that the speed of light is constant.

What would change would be the distance over which the velocity wold be measured.

The majority accept the concept of spacetime bending due to gravity wells, and in this environment distances become compressed, so the same could be said of changes in permeability which would ensure that no matter what its value was, it would always appear to be constant.

So the answer as to how fast light can travel depends on how much light there is.

##### Share on other sites

For there to be a fundemental definition of Time, it would have to be independant of observer.

Inherant to SR, the reference of time is tied to an observer. Thus by your definition there

would be nor fundamental definition. Were come up with one adhering to both SR, GR &

QM + QFT and Standard Model, I would like see it (even only some of the above fields).

With respect to Relativity, whether general or special. you have additional factors that need to be taken account of, be they velocity or gravitation fields. Here your frame of reference is relevant. For the definiton of Time, there need be no view point.

See above. Only Classical Newtonian physics is there an Absolute time independent of

the observer frame of reference.

So the answer as to how fast light can travel depends on how much light there is.

I believe you will the speed of one photon will travel at the same speed as the beam of

laser light when in the same medium (be that of c in a vacumn). :hyper:

##### Share on other sites

Inherant to SR, the reference of time is tied to an observer. Thus by your definition there would be nor fundamental definition. Were come up with one adhering to both SR, GR & QM + QFT and Standard Model, I would like see it (even only some of the above fields).

See above. Only Classical Newtonian physics is there an Absolute time independent of

the observer frame of reference.

All of your above examples use reference frames to be able to measure time, not define it.

I believe you will the speed of one photon will travel at the same speed as the beam of

laser light when in the same medium (be that of c in a vacumn).

The question is not how fast it travels, but what prevents it from travelling at a different velocity ?

##### Share on other sites

WebFeet

As a matter of fact I have argued long and hard for the idea that perhaps gravity DOES reduce the speed of light. It works out just as well as arguing that it warps space, and it is a lot easier to understand.

The argument goes this way.

1) it would account for gravitational lensing.

2) The kinetic energy gained when an object falls into a gravitational well is balanced by loss of potential energy. It starts with the energy of its mass as E=MC2. Inside the gravitational field C is reduced, so the potential energy associated with the objects mass is also reduced. The maths works if one of the two C's in that equation is the local speed of light.

3) It accounts for gravitational time dilation. Dilate C and time must follow.

##### Share on other sites

Your mention of permiability brings to mind the area of math called "Percolation Theory". In this field one investigates the spread of phenomena; ie. forest fires or oil deposits, through a medium(a forest or a rock formation). Since you have described a situation in which it appears light is percolating through a medium, perhaps some of the equations from this area may serve to model light as well. :hyper:

##### Share on other sites

WebFeet

As a matter of fact I have argued long and hard for the idea that perhaps gravity DOES reduce the speed of light. It works out just as well as arguing that it warps space, and it is a lot easier to understand.

The argument goes this way.

1) it would account for gravitational lensing.

2) The kinetic energy gained when an object falls into a gravitational well is balanced by loss of potential energy. It starts with the energy of its mass as E=MC2. Inside the gravitational field C is reduced, so the potential energy associated with the objects mass is also reduced. The maths works if one of the two C's in that equation is the local speed of light.

3) It accounts for gravitational time dilation. Dilate C and time must follow.

Your theory still depends on the bending of spacetime in a gravitational well.

Here's a big what if for you.

What if the speed of light is in fact infinite ? That energy can travel between two points instantly.

Before this thread gets inundated with post stated that the speed of light is a known constant, let me explain.

I started this thread describing how Time can be defined by using permeability and permittivity as in Maxwell's equations.

If energy could travel instantly from one side of a region of space to the other, its permeability would be absolute along with its permittivity.

Now add a bit of energy into that region. Its permeability is no longer absolute. Any energy travelling through the region would encounter the other energy.

The more energy that is present in a specific region, the more its permeability is reduced.

Let's use einstein's E=MC2 and substited C2 with Maxwell's equation for the speed of light to give us

E = M / µ οε ο

The amount of energy in any given mass is directly related to the permeability and permittivity of free space.

If we use a volume of free space for the mass, then the amount of energy contained in that volume will increase if there is a reduction in permeability or permittivity.

We accept that within the field of a gravitational well, distances are compressed. THis is explained as the bending/warping of spacetime due to the gravitational well.

The same effects can be demonstrated with the above.

To maintain the same amount of energy when we have any reduction in mass (or volume) the permeability/permittivity of free space has to have been reduced. Whatever is inside the volume has effectively been compressed.

Light will still take the same amount of time to travel from one side of the volume to the other.

The gravity well is a region of free space with a lower permeability than that surrounding it. Essentially, it just a bit more compressed.

And because we can define Time in terms of the properties of free space, light will always appear to be travelling at the same velocity.

##### Share on other sites

Your mention of permiability brings to mind the area of math called "Percolation Theory". In this field one investigates the spread of phenomena; ie. forest fires or oil deposits, through a medium(a forest or a rock formation). Since you have described a situation in which it appears light is percolating through a medium, perhaps some of the equations from this area may serve to model light as well. :hyper:

Thanks for the pointer.

On first inspection, it would appear that there may some mileage in using percolation.

##### Share on other sites

We accept that within the field of a gravitational well, distances are compressed.

No I don't.

A gravitational well acts as an optical lens. That much is well tested. I have been arguing that 2 causes are possible ETHER distances are compressed OR C is reduced. Ether way you get your lens.

The evidence holds up as well for gravity warping C as it does for warping space. If C is warped, space isn't. ALL the effects attributed to space warp have to be reassigned to reduced C.

##### Share on other sites

No I don't.

A gravitational well acts as an optical lens. That much is well tested. I have been arguing that 2 causes are possible ETHER distances are compressed OR C is reduced. Ether way you get your lens.

The evidence holds up as well for gravity warping C as it does for warping space. If C is warped, space isn't. ALL the effects attributed to space warp have to be reassigned to reduced C.

I used the example of distances being compressed in a gravity field by way of generally accepted theory.

It may be that in what you are saying, both things are true. C is reduced and distances are compressed.

Using the example of a volume of free space.

If the permeability of the volume where halved, then it is true that light would take twice as long to traverse the volume of free space. So the apparent speed of light would have halved.

Since time can be defined by the permeability of free space, the amount of time taken for the light to cross the volume would also have halved.

The net result is that it would appear that the speed of light has remained constant.

In truth, the light has taken longer to travel through the region of free space, but since every measurement is dependant on the permeability of that region, our preception of what has happened would be that the speed of light has remained constant.