New law implies thermodynamic time runs backwards inside black holes

September 3, 2015 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature

The new area law states that the area of a future holographic screen (the solid blue line in [a]) is always increasing in one direction, while the area of a past holographic screen (the solid blue line in [b.]) is always increasing in a different direction. Credit: Bousso and Engelhardt. ©2015 American Physical Society
(Phys.org)—Black holes are known to have many strange properties, such as that they allow nothing—not even light—to escape after falling in. A lesser known but equally bizarre property is that black holes appear to "know" what happens in the future in order to form in the first place. However, this strange property arises from the way in which black holes are defined, which has motivated some physicists to explore alternative definitions.

In a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, Raphael Bousso, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Netta Engelhardt, a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, have reported a new area law in general relativity that is based on an interpretation of black holes as curved geometric objects called "holographic screens."

"The so-called teleology of the black hole is an artifact of the way in which physicists define an event horizon: the event horizon is defined with respect to infinite future elapsed time, so by definition it 'knows' about the entire fate of the universe," Engelhardt told Phys.org. "In general relativity, the black hole event horizon cannot be observed by any physical observer in finite time, and there isn't a sense in which the black hole as an entity knows about future infinity. It is simply a convenient way of describing black holes."

As Engelhardt explained, one reason why holographic screens are so interesting is that they are defined in a way which depends on more local properties and does not require information about future infinity.

"This is one property that makes objects like holographic screens so appealing: they do not suffer from such bizarre properties in the way in which they are defined," she said.

In their paper, the physicists report a new area law that tells in which direction the area of a holographic screen increases, which depends on whether the screen is a "future holographic screen" or a "past holographic screen." As the scientists explain, these two types of screens correspond to different types of gravitational fields.

"Holographic screens are in a sense a local boundary to regions of strong gravitational fields," Engelhardt said. "Future holographic screens correspond to gravitational fields which pull matter together (e.g., black hole, big crunch), whereas past holographic screens correspond to regions which spread matter out (e.g., big bang, white hole)."

The new area law states that the area of a future holographic screen is always increasing in one direction, while the area of a past holographic screen is always increasing in a second (different) direction. This law has some intriguing interpretations when viewed from a thermodynamic perspective and using the idea that spacetime is a hologram. According to the holographic principle, the amount of information or entropy in a given area is related to the surface area. So by interpreting the area as a bound on the entropy, the area law can reveal the direction of thermodynamic time (which, as the scientists note, is not the same as mathematical time).

Because the area of future and past holographic screens increases in different directions, the direction of time is different for the two types of screens. In past screens, time moves forward. Expanding universes, such as ours, involve past holographic screens, and so we naturally perceive thermodynamic time as running forward. In contrast, time runs backward in future holographic screens. In a sense, this interpretation has the odd result that thermodynamic time runs backward inside black holes and collapsing universes.

The scientists also note in their paper that this is the first new broadly applicable area law in since 1971, when Stephen Hawking showed that a black hole's event horizon (and therefore its total surface area) never gets smaller. Later, however, Hawking showed that, in the presence of , emit radiation. This emission causes a black hole's event horizon, surface area, and mass to decrease over , so that the black hole eventually evaporates. In the absence of quantum effects, however, the Hawking area law still holds.

This is also one area of future research for Bousso and Engelhardt—to investigate how the new area law may hold up in the presence of quantum effects.

"Our area law holds in the absence of quantum effects, and we hope in the to prove a more generalized area law which will hold more generally in the presence of certain quantum effects," Engelhardt said.

Explore further: Black hole thermodynamics

More information: Raphael Bousso and Netta Engelhardt. "A New Area Law in General Relativity." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.081301

Related Stories

Black hole thermodynamics

September 10, 2014

In the 1800s scientists studying things like heat and the behavior of low density gases developed a theory known as thermodynamics. As the name suggests, this theory describes the dynamic behavior of heat (or more generally ...

Video: How do black holes evaporate?

April 14, 2015

Nothing lasts forever, not even black holes. According to Stephen Hawking, black holes will evaporate over vast periods of time. But how, exactly, does this happen?

Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

September 9, 2014

According to general relativity, a black hole has three measurable properties: mass, rotation (angular momentum), and charge. That's it. If you know those three things, you know all there is to know about the black hole. ...

Recommended for you

Bursting bubbles launch bacteria from water to air

November 15, 2018

Wherever there's water, there's bound to be bubbles floating at the surface. From standing puddles, lakes, and streams, to swimming pools, hot tubs, public fountains, and toilets, bubbles are ubiquitous, indoors and out.

Terahertz laser pulses amplify optical phonons in solids

November 15, 2018

A study led by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science in Hamburg/Germany presents evidence of the amplification of optical phonons ...

Designer emulsions

November 15, 2018

ETH material researchers are developing a method with which they can coat droplets with controlled interfacial composition and coverage on demand in an emulsion in order to stabilise them. In doing so they are fulfilling ...

Quantum science turns social

November 15, 2018

Researchers in a lab at Aarhus University have developed a versatile remote gaming interface that allowed external experts as well as hundreds of citizen scientists all over the world to optimize a quantum gas experiment ...

225 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JES
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2015
Hmm, couldn't be much clearer than that..
viko_mx
Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MarkmBha
not rated yet Sep 03, 2015
Interesting -
AGreatWhopper
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2015
That's all been there for years in the Gallifreyan "Eye of Harmony Operator's Manual".
docile
Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.6 / 5 (20) Sep 03, 2015
This is the reason why GR have nothing to do with physical reality.
@vikoTROLL
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true
https://en.wikipe...lativity

(if the below links don't work, try copy/paste)
https://en.wikipe...lativity#Definition_and_basic_applications

https://en.wikipe...lativity#Consequences_of_Einstein.27s_theory

https://en.wikipe...lativity#Astrophysical_applications

you should do more research in physics and less biblical pontification if you want to comment on GR
it is not a matter of "geometric objects on which can be done random mathematical operations"

see also:
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics
Zzzzzzzz
4 / 5 (16) Sep 03, 2015
"...have reported a new area law in general relativity that is based on an interpretation of black holes as curved geometric objects called "holographic screens."

When we explore physical reality we consider physical objects with their physical properties and limitations instead geometric objects on which can be done random mathematical operations and transformations. This is the reason why GR have nothing to do with physical reality. GR operate on imaginary (geometric) reality (like 3D game engine) which is out of the scope of our interest as scientists.

What kind of meaningless hogwash is this? The writer of this sort of shit has no knowledge OR interest in anything scientific.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2015
… instead geometric objects on which can be done random mathematical operations and transformations. This is the reason why GR have nothing to do with physical reality.


On the contrary. Implicit in the mathematical machinery of GR, there are various constraints, symmetries, and identities defined that refute your claim of "random mathematical operations and transformations".

For example, given the definition of the Riemann curvature tensor [i.e. as a commutator of double covariant derivatives operating on a tensor], there are symmetries and identities which result in mathematical constraints;…. the form of the Einstein field equations are derived from the twice contracted Bianchi identities (of the Riemann curvature tensor), which guarantees that the Einstein tensor and thus the stress-energy tensor are divergence free, i.e. guarantees conservation of energy and momentum.

Sounds like physical reality to me.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2015
[continued]....Further, you can't take "random transformations" in the mathematical operations, as the fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry guarantees that there is a unique covariant derivative on the tangent bundle of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, ….called the Levi-Civita connection, ….that is compatible with the given metric and preserves it during parallel transport of tensors to measure curvature, that is also torsion free, that preserves the inner product of tensors, the notion of orthogonality in tangent space,…

The only thing randomness that is allowed in GR is the specific form of the coordinate systems,… which is precisely what is desired,… as what is physical in GR are invariant quantities, ….not coordinate dependent quantities (i.e. observer-dependent).

docile
Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2015
thermodynamic time (which, as the scientists note, is not the same as mathematical time


Physics should have picked a different word than 'time',

Thermodynamic time…. is not really time at all but rather emergent statistical chance. "If you ask an atom about the arrow of time, it will laugh in your face."- Wheeler

Mathematical time…. is mathematical idealism masquerading as a quantity which presumes a physical continuance of existence and flow.

Intuitive time,… a mind-dependent a-priori intellectual faculty and condition for experience to be possible.

Physical time…. there is no such thing observable independent of its use. No physical time-particle, nor time-field. In GR time is Defined (operationally) to be a physical system, rather than presumed as a physical flow in itself… i.e. as comparing the congruence of one physical system to another).
TopCat22
2.8 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2015
A black hole is not a thing. It is a lack of a thing. Like the hole inside the donut. It is a hole in the universe we belong in. We cannot know what goes on inside the hole just like we cannot know what went on before the big bang. The big bang created our spacetime. Past the event horizon our spacetime is no more and does not exist. Spacetime is being destroyed or disappearing at the event horizon.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2015
Stop wasting your time Mr. Hawking. Your radiation if it exists is on the other side of the event horizon and cannot be experienced hence it cannot exist in our spacetime.

Actually the Hawking black-hole radiation is a bit of a misnomer as the physical cause of the radiation in question originates outside the event horizon, 'on our side', and indeed 'evaporates' into our space-time.
adam_russell_9615
4.7 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2015
"In the absence of quantum effects, however, the Hawking area law still holds"

In what case would there be an absence of quantum effects?
TopCat22
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2015
Stop wasting your time Mr. Hawking. Your radiation if it exists is on the other side of the event horizon and cannot be experienced hence it cannot exist in our spacetime.

Actually the Hawking black-hole radiation is a bit of a misnomer as the physical cause of the radiation in question originates outside the event horizon, 'on our side'.

there can be no such thing as Hawking Radiation because an equal number of virtual particles both anti and non-anti would fall into the event horizon. there is no mechanism for creating more anti particles than non-anti particles to fall in with which to create such a radiation with.

Furthermore if there was it would still take an infinite amount of time for the particle to pass through the event horizon making it impossible to create the radiation just the same
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2015
Stop wasting your time Mr. Hawking. Your radiation if it exists is on the other side of the event horizon and cannot be experienced hence it cannot exist in our spacetime.

Actually the Hawking black-hole radiation is a bit of a misnomer as the physical cause of the radiation in question originates outside the event horizon, 'on our side'.

there can be no such thing as Hawking Radiation because an equal number of virtual particles both anti and non-anti would fall into the event horizon.


Doesn't matter, ....from the perspective of an observer the BH emitted a particle or anti-particle both of which have positive mass.

it would still take an infinite amount of time for the particle to pass through the event horizon


Only from the perspective of an observer away from the EH,... the particle itself from its perspective would go past the EH as if nothing was strange.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2015
"If you ask an atom about the arrow of time, it will laugh in your face."- Wheeler


If you are talking to laughing atoms then you are 'off your face'.
docile
Sep 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2015
nonsense
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2015
nonsense

based upon questionable logic, physics and mathematics
TopCat22
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 03, 2015


Doesn't matter, ....from the perspective of an observer the BH emitted a particle or anti-particle both of which have positive mass.

it would still take an infinite amount of time for the particle to pass through the event horizon


Only from the perspective of an observer away from the EH,... the particle itself from its perspective would go past the EH as if nothing was strange.


The BH cannot emit anything through the event horizon. Any number of particles and anti-particles near the event horizon would be equal and cancel each other out. There is no such thing as Hawking Radiation.... it is the same thing as pink elephants forming just inside past the event horizon.... outside of our universe.

The particle passing though the event horizon would never actually pass through until just after the end of time
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2015


Doesn't matter, ....from the perspective of an observer the BH emitted a particle or anti-particle both of which have positive mass.

it would still take an infinite amount of time for the particle to pass through the event horizon


Only from the perspective of an observer away from the EH,... the particle itself from its perspective would go past the EH as if nothing was strange.


The BH cannot emit anything through the event horizon. Any number of particles and anti-particles near the event horizon would be equal and cancel each other out. There is no such thing as Hawking Radiation.... it is the same thing as pink elephants forming just inside past the event horizon.... outside of our universe.

The particle passing though the event horizon would never actually pass through until just after the end of time

err-{"mass"}
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2015
Correct: {"Continuous Space-Time & ~ as a mass of {+,-} !& Logic, i.e. definition of "continuity". "Space-Time", !Known ... implies description as a mathematical linear unit-less real 4D space-time === space using the laws of "Maxwell" as my first proposition, i.e my unit of measure then unit less field description. E(everywhere)&Not Dr. E}

Not!Correct & inexplicable(paradox) > null, i.e. undefinable within above; therefore, P(HyperFuzzy=True!) >P(Dr. E = True)" based upon present tools of measure ... designed using Maxwell!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 03, 2015
mass = f(+,-) then f(everything) And (+ or -) = f(mass), no problem. However, mass is made of the (+,-) but not the other way, that's silly!

maybe we have a bad definition of mass

anyway energy? at what transport? i.e. ref? m0???
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2015
@Noumenon although I don't agree with you about 100%, 'Physical time…. there is no such thing observable independent of its use. No physical time-particle, nor time-field...' (just some idea I have and trying to sort out), I do on other items. That is, it seems to me that you are offering mathematics for the discussion. Unfortunately this seems lacking in the preprint (Doug_Huffman). As a layman the article appears to have some connection with SStringT when it includes area determination. Am I on the right track here?
On the positive side I remember way back when the singularity was expected to be so dense that sound was expected to travel ftl, which I think has long since been discarded. So I like articles that attempt to advance our understanding of exotic objects, not least for the posts by those who know.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2015
So I missed this class in Topology about continuous real spaces that support a "discontinuity" and allows a reversal of how defined, whatever that is or even scaled by the object under investigation, fuzzy; anyway, speaking of topology, I think given the Integers are countable, anyway .. math professor disagreed.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 03, 2015
@Noumenon although I don't agree with you about 100%, 'Physical time…. there is no such thing observable independent of its use. No physical time-particle, nor time-field...' (just some idea I have and trying to sort out), I do on other items. That is, it seems to me that you are offering mathematics for the discussion. Unfortunately this seems lacking in the preprint (Doug_Huffman). As a layman the article appears to have some connection with SStringT when it includes area determination. Am I on the right track here?
On the positive side I remember way back when the singularity was expected ...

Oh my Psycho babble, I was trying to relate to those that trust in the above. I have no idea what I wrote, just that all I see is an undefined "+" and "-" as the only the only necessary and sufficient conditions to define anything using what we know and use to measure everything. so ..
jvclark2
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
"Our area law holds in the absence of quantum effects..."

I'm just an Earthly meteorologist, so pardon my ignorance, but what is the use of a law that describes the entropy within black holes if it fails once quantum effects are accounted for? This isn't exactly Newtonian physics where there is practical application despite not technically being correct, right? They have basically declared that the arrow of time points backwards in black holes, except, you know...it fails when reality is accounted for.
inkosana
1 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2015
When we explore physical reality we consider physical objects with their physical properties and limitations instead geometric objects on which can be done random mathematical operations and transformations. This is the reason why GR have nothing to do with physical reality. GR operate on imaginary (geometric) reality (like 3D game engine) which is out of the scope of our interest as scientists.
Thank you for bringing sanity into this discussion. A black hole IS trapped light within a cavity. When one traps light within a cavity, it forms stationary waves with no kinetic-energy, and which thus demands zero entropy within the cavity: The temperature within the cavity is thus T=0. It is thus a massive laser cavity. That is why it can also emit directed beams of EM radiation a la quasars and pulsars.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2015
maybe we have a bad definition of mass
That is correct. That is why the bozos at CERN's massive Circus, hunt for bosons which they irresponsibly claim are responsible for mass, even though there is no experiment that can falsify this claim. This is mystics, not physics. It follows directly from the Lorentz transformation that mass is proportional to electromagnetic energy. One does not need esoteric "particles" to understand where mass comes from.

docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Sep 04, 2015
The Higgs bosons account to less than two percent of particle mass. Most of energy inside the matter is not of electromagnetic character anyway..
Experimental evidence for this please or a derivation from Maxwell's equations that you are right. You are so demented that you think that you are correct even when you make inconsistent, hand-waving claims, which you cannot prove. Only docile knows: The rest of the world is wrong: Only docile is in step. LOL! Oh Zephyr you are an ill wind blowing up stink!
Noumenon
5 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2015
@johanfprins, you're a crank foaming at the mouth. You rate me a 1 for pointing out that the mathematical formulation of GR refutes the notion of just "random mathematical operations and transformations". This is factually true irrespective of your particular inability to move beyond 19th century physics.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
If we consider the entire galaxy as a very basic dynamic, mass is coalescing inward, as radiation expands outward.

Given that energy is conserved, it goes from past to future events, which means the arrow of time for energy is from past to future. Meanwhile, these events come into being and dissolve. Much as tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So the arrow of time for events is future to past.

Now all our measurements and scientific observations constitute events and as such will recede into the past, so the past is determined, while the future, not having resolved its input, is probabilistic.

Think in terms of a factory, where the product goes from start to finish, while the production process points the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product.

Or how individuals go from birth to death, future to past, as the species moves onto new generations, shedding old, past to future.

brodix
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
Now the mass falling into galaxies has begun this process of determination, while the energy radiating away has been shed as excess and radiates to other possible events.

So, yes, there are two directions of time built into the process, because time is a loop and galaxies are cosmic convection cycles, of expanding energy and coalescing matter.

The start to finish narrative effect is just an emergent aspect of the dynamical process of change and the expansion between galaxies is balanced by the contraction into them.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2015
For naive physicists the sphere is as three-dimensional object like the 3D space, in which it resides. But to convert the extrinsic perspective of 3D sphere into a intrinsic perspective of space seamlessly actually requires very high number of dimensions.


Riemannian geometry (GR not string theory extension) does not require an embedding space, ...reference to a external space. It is self-contained and complete system with four dimensions only required.

docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
@ docile: You have proved your point: Namely that you are completely insane!
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
"Of course this symmetry can be - and probably is - broken."

Which would constitute an arrow of time. The part of the cycle where order dissolves back into the larger field.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
Captain Stumpy appears to be the Troll (re: viko_mx). Engaging in name calling and accusations of theological babble ("biblical pontification") is merely a way to dismiss a comment outright without any calrification -- merely obscurantism. It has become apparent (i.e., the Wheeler-Dewitt Equation) that Time is a metrical representation (a shorthand) for describing relative interactions of particles, and resultant motions -- from quantum interactions through the larger scales. Additionally, much like the Schreodinger wave equation and the Copenhagen matrix representation of Heisenberg providing equivalent results, it is not as all unreasonable to postulate that the matrix method of GR might also have a more reasonable "physical" approach as well. If Time is simply a metrical representation of changes due to interactions, this DOES affect the physical conception of spacetime. Space and Time ARE inextricably connected, but Time would be a result or coordinating motions in Space.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
Docile,
Time is a measure of action, specifically frequency. The reason it is asymmetric is the inertia of the action. The earth spins one direction, not the other.

So time/change is an effect of this, much like temperature, which is a measure of frequency and amplitude. The only physical reality is the state of the present.
So the arrow of time for this state of the present, is from prior to succeeding form/events. It doesn't go in reverse. The larger reality though, is that it is not the present moving, but the events being created and dissolved, so the arrow for them is from being in the future to being in the past.
Therefore it is entirely relativistic. To assume there is some "block time" of all events is to assume these obviously transient occurrences are somehow more fundamental than the state of the present in which they are occurring.
Physics has fallen prey to the "naive intuition" of thinking the narrative effect is foundational.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
Tim,
Temperature and volume are inextricably linked too, as is much of reality, but we can distinguish between them because temperature isn't foundational to the rational thought process of sequenced flashes of cognition. It is only foundational to our biological and emotional functions.
docile
Sep 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
Captain Stumpy appears to be the Troll (re: viko_mx)
@TimLong2001
Please feel free to demonstrate where anything i said to Viko is wrong

i clarified & made a specific point and used links/references for support & evidence

(viko is a KNOWN TROLL pushing his religious preferences over science: this is not supposition, but acknowledgement of factual data that you can see for yourself simply by googling Phys.org and his name)

are you saying that viko is correct in his assertions that "GR have nothing to do with physical reality"???
really?

or are you simply a sock?

by all means, feel free to expound and provide evidence that refutes me
or supports viko

inkosana
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
Tim,
Temperature and volume are inextricably linked too
No they are not: Only when there is kinetic-energy within the volume. If the volume only contains rest-mass energy, its temperature is zero! And is has zero entropy.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
"Our area law holds in the absence of quantum effects..."

I'm just an Earthly meteorologist, so pardon my ignorance, but what is the use of a law that describes the entropy within black holes if it fails once quantum effects are accounted for? This isn't exactly Newtonian physics where there is practical application despite not technically being correct, right? They have basically declared that the arrow of time points backwards in black holes, except, you know...it fails when reality is accounted for.

QM? Assumptions upon an unknown state, statistical based upon "quanta", a self defined measure, statistically. Try bottom-up, place the "+" and "-" into a 4D continuous unit-less space, use lambda from c= .. I haven't tried any definition other than Maxwell's,
brodix
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
docile,

We use light in the same way bats use ultrasonic waves, to judge distances. In fact, as primates, we have our eyes closely spaced together for depth perception. When you are swinging around in trees, it helps to be able to finely sense depth.

That said, it is still physical movement in space and time is a measure of this activity, rates of change. Past and future configurations do not exist, while other points in space do. The energy which manifested them, or will, is only manifesting the present moment.

ink,

It's still a measure, even if it's zero. That's the point, time and temperature are measures of activity in space. If you have no activity, then the measure is zero.

If you have some rest mass energy, it might still have a temperature, but no entropy gradient. Absolute zero would be a complete lack of any energy, yet presumably the resulting void has volume.
brodix
5 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
The idea that space needs to have structure(mass/energy) to exist, overlooks the logic that the lack of structure is a void. Otherwise it presumes to start with a dimensionless point, which is a mathematical fallacy, given anything multiplied by zero, is zero.

You might say that zero, the absence, is the blank sheet of paper, not a point at the center. The point is simply the initial location. The center point of the coordinate system. Space is said to be 3D, but that is really just the xyz coordinate system and as such, is a mapping device, like longitude, latitude and altitude.

Unless you specify the specific coordinates, it is just a fuzzy concept, but if you do, then multiple maps can be applied to the same space, often to support different points of view, such as Israelis and Palestinians.These views being based on different narrative timelines.

So without any physical features to bound or disrupt it, space has the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
Equilibrium is implicit in time slowing and distance shrinking in a moving frame, since the frame with he fastest clocks and longest distances would be the one closest to the equilibrium of this vacuum of space.

So it is space that is both absolute and infinite. Everything else is positive/negative disruptions of the equilibrium. Energy expanding out and mass collapsing in.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
"...have reported a new area law in general relativity that is based on an interpretation of black holes as curved geometric objects called "holographic screens."

When we explore physical reality we consider physical objects with their physical properties and limitations instead geometric objects on which can be done random mathematical operations and transformations. This is the reason why GR have nothing to do with physical reality. GR operate on imaginary (geometric) reality (like 3D game engine) which is out of the scope of our interest as scientists.

Using what topology?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015


So without any physical features to bound or disrupt it, space has the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium.

huh?

Captain Stumpy appears to be the Troll (re: viko_mx)
@TimLong2001
Please feel free to demonstrate where anything i said to Viko is wrong

i clarified & made a specific point and used links/references for support & evidence

(viko is a KNOWN TROLL pushing his religious preferences over science: this is not supposition, but acknowledgement of factual data that you can see for yourself simply by googling Phys.org and his name)

are you saying that viko is correct in his assertions that "GR have nothing to do with physical reality"???
really?

or are you simply a sock?

by all means, feel free to expound and provide evidence that refutes me
or supports viko


No, "Gr 'has' nothing to do with reality!"
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
Sounds like the group is lost in a maze of mirrors. A frame that covers all space is a mathematical isomorphism, not a physical reality. To make it so is only a supposition within someone's mind based upon some fuzzy logic. The representation is to define the "unknown", i.e. charge with something known that defines by the charge and space-time defies logic. With nothing but a continuous space-time, forward and backward are defined by initial conditions and are always forward from the moment of reference. The "+" and the "-" are arbitrary based upon your definition of an energy sink and source, or reflector, ... This would be a better thought than staring into a mirror to define how much you know about the unknown!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2015
In other words, what is unknown is unknown, what is known is known. A tautology. Stating what is unknown as defined by the known using the assumption of mass as fundamental that the defines the frame and the mass is not very close to logic or reality. The unknown is the "+" and the "-" which may be represented in a 4D unit-less space-time. Why the above tool as our measure to define a different unknown unverifiable physics using only mass? Ridiculous!
brodix
not rated yet Sep 04, 2015
Hyperfuzzy,

Point taken, but I'm not saying all of space is one frame. Necessarily a frame is definition. A mapping device. There is no such universal frame, as an objective point of view is an oxymoron.

No "God's eye" view. So space is not just one three dimensional frame. Any frame is, by definition, a subset of its context.

inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2015
If you have some rest mass energy, it might still have a temperature, but no entropy gradient. Absolute zero would be a complete lack of any energy, yet presumably the resulting void has volume.


You ONLY have non-zero temperature when you have kinetic energy T where T=m*c^2-m(R)*c^2. When there is no kinetic energy whatsoever, one only has rest mass m(R) and ZERO temperature. Do you want to tell me that a condensate at absolute zero temperature cannot have rest-mass m(R)?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
Point taken, but I'm not saying all of space is one frame. Necessarily a frame is definition. A mapping device. There is no such universal frame, as an objective point of view is an oxymoron.

No "God's eye" view. So space is not just one three dimensional frame. Any frame is, by definition, a subset of its context.
Wrong! A Cartesian reference frame IS a universal frame ("God's eye view") for any manifold, no matter whether it is "distorted"" by curvature. Curved coordinates are used to adapt to symmetries but can always be mapped into a SINGLE Cartesian system; where the latter determines the number of dimensions. If a single Cartesian system cannot be defined for any manifold we will not know whether such a manifold is curved or not curved.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
ink,

I'm trying to wrap my head around mass without energy. Doesn't that violate indeterminacy? No wave, no particle.

I see geometry as mapping space, not creating it. What do you start with; A dimensionless point?

It would seem even infinite numbers of dimensionless points still don't add up to anything, as multiples of zero are still zero. You have to have dimensionality, i.e.. space, to have space. so, yes, space is neither curved, or not curved, only the structures within it.

brodix
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2015
I realize the whole mathematical universe hypothesis rests on the maps, the measurements, being more real than what is being mapped and measured, but I think that will eventually fail. It has too many built in fallacies. For instance, it is argued space expands, based on the premise of spacetime and GR, but that overlooks the fact that in order to be redshifted, the light has to take longer to cross this increased distance and therefore isn't Constant to it. So there is presumably one metric of space, based on the spectrum of intergalactic light and another based on the speed of the very same light, as there would be more lightyears between these galaxies, not expanded lightyears. So which is the "ruler?"

brodix
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
As for time, treating it as measurements of duration only codifies the narrative effect and we are supposed to believe there is some block time, where these apparently transient effects are more real than the state of the present, in which they occur. As I've argued, I see only the present and its conserved energy as being physically real, with duration as the state of the present, as the events form and dissolve, thus going future to past. As in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns, not all such days existing on some metaphysical time dimension.
docile
Sep 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
ink,

I'm trying to wrap my head around mass without energy.
That is not what I have stated. mass IS energy. But it is two types of energies "rest-mass" energy and kinetic energy. Only kinetic energy is temperature. Thus if you have a matter-entity that ONLY has rest-mass this energy cannot equate to temperature.

I see geometry as mapping space, not creating it.
Bravo! That is why Einstein's theory of gravity is pure BS.

It would seem even infinite numbers of dimensionless points still don't add up to anything, as multiples of zero are still zero.
Not quite correct. A special type of addition applies called integration. When using this to, for example calculate a distance, the distances you add are all zero-distances in the limit.

"You have to have dimensionality, i.e.. space, to have space. so, yes, space is neither curved, or not curved, only the structures within it.
I wish there were more people like you with logical minds.

docile
Sep 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
docile,
"like we would do it inside of completely dark room."

Bats use echo location and we use a flashlight. Sending a signal out and sensing the return information. Otherwise we use ambient light reflected off the surfaces.

"path of light gets curved as if the space would get curved"

What if light travels as waves and only coalesces into point-like particles around mass or in energetically dense conditions. The consequence would be that traveling light takes up more space than interrupted light. We would detect this as the curvature of light passing through this space. Such that gravity itself is not so much a property of mass, as it is an effect of energy coalescing into mass. It is that inward curvature that is so well modeled geometrically, but cannot be detected as a singular force.
The gravitational effect of dark matter wouldn't require actual mass, so much as dense areas of cosmic rays, particles, plasma, etc. As what is seen on the edges of galaxies.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
ink,

I realize the concept of temperature is usually only applied to kinetic level energies, but what is the term describing quantum levels of energies?

Kelvin is used to measure the CMBR and I can't think of mass being cooled that far, without its atomic activity collapsing into a point, if not having been completely radiated away in the process.

My larger point is that both time and temperature are measures of activity/energy. Rate of change and quantity. If we measure the quantity of energy in a gas, yes, it is both the number of and specific kinetic energy of the particles, but doesn't that compare to both frequency and amplitude of waves? Amplitude being the equivalent to kinetic energy, as frequency would be number and rate.
Photons would be a good example, in that they certainly generate heat, but it isn't kinetic, so much as the actual photon being absorbed.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2015
Hyperfuzzy,

Point taken, but I'm not saying all of space is one frame. Necessarily a frame is definition. A mapping device. There is no such universal frame, as an objective point of view is an oxymoron.

No "God's eye" view. So space is not just one three dimensional frame. Any frame is, by definition, a subset of its context.


So you state, this is not possible? Why can't a universal mathematical infinite 4D space be defined as a frame using present mathematics. That is, a mathematics that defines the physics. That's what physics is, right? The science of measurement as a priori. If not so, what the hell are we looking for and what are we trying to do, using the unknown as a guide or simply BS ideas? What's your set of frames? Things undefinable within a 4D continuous real space using a discontinuous space as continuous? How many continuous spaces do you require to infer the impossible discontinuities, like time travel, black holes, infinite density, ...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2015
4D continuous unit less space with axis of equal dimension, allows a view-port of your discretion, are you thinking clearly? Notice, the frame describes the location of the "+" and "-" and the field strength upon every point within this space time. The functional response is the response of the "+" and "-" position based upon Maxwell. In other words, it only a description of what is.

The f("+,-") is the spatial motion and field at every point within this continuous space. Best to begin by isolating stable state, like atoms, molecules, etc.. temperature, funny thing, nuclear motion, molecular motion, release of ionizing phonons and non-ionizing phonons, number of states, or states possible. I require a better description than statistics, i.e. actuality.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
ink,

I realize the concept of temperature is usually only applied to kinetic level energies, but what is the term describing quantum levels of energy
Each quantum-level of energy ONLY has rest mass energy. Such a level has NO kinetic energy. If it had, it would continuously radiate this kinetic-energy away.

Kelvin is used to measure the CMBR
This explained in my book "Why does E=mc^2". Black-body radiation consists of stationary light-waves, each of which has ONLY rest-mass and thus ZERO temperature. Only when they resonate with a detector is the energy converted to kinetic-energy which can be equated to temperature of CMBR..

brodix
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
Hyper,

It is a description, from the zero point of the xyz coordinate system. We are all the center point of our own coordinate system, which extends to infinity. How and why would it be extended to an objective model of the universe? Where is the center point? Even the Big Bang model says every point is the center of its frame, as space expands. Given we all exist in the same space, on the surface of this planet, our frames overlap and we all have our individual narrative time dimension.

ink,

"continuously radiate this kinetic-energy away."

Not if it existed in a medium of the same temperature.

"Black-body radiation consists of stationary light-waves, each of which has ONLY rest-mass and thus ZERO temperature."

So presumably it would have zero time as well, given these waves/cycles are "stationary?"
brodix
not rated yet Sep 05, 2015
Hyper,

PS, Consider that societies amount to framing devices, with their central point of reference, be it monarch/leader, constitution/holy book, location/capital, etc. Yet the consequence is that competing centers of power arise and often define themselves as much as to what they are against, as for. The + and - of what is determined beneficial and detrimental.

While we are taught good and bad are some cosmic moral dual between the forces of righteousness and evil, the reality is they are the basic biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental.

So possibly it would be of cultural benefit to appreciate such frames are useful and necessary tools, but not applicable beyond their particular coordinate systems.
docile
Sep 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bloodyorphan
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
the area law can reveal the direction of thermodynamic time (which, as the scientists note, is not the same as mathematical time).


In other words the thermodynamic inside of a black hole does not express, i.e. the force is so great that heat is not longer expressed only collected.

Time has so many different meanings when looking at observational data that it confuses even the most cognisant.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2015
ink, "continuously radiate this kinetic-energy away."Not if it existed in a medium of the same temperature.
Temperature only distributes energy amongst the allowed stationary electron-waves around a nucleus; where the energy of each wave is rest-mass energy. The stationary wave itself has NO kinetic energy.
"Black-body radiation consists of stationary light-waves, each of which has ONLY rest-mass and thus ZERO temperature." So presumably it would have zero time as well, given these waves/cycles are "stationary?"
This can be easily derived from Maxwell's equations for an EM wave trapped within a reflecting cavity. A stationary wave forms which DOES NOT vibrate like a wave on a violin string, since a light wave is not formed within aether. The time becomes imaginary time which causes energy fluctuations owing to Faraday's law of induction. These resonant-fluctuations are not permanent kinetic energy and therefore T=0, and I suspect that entropy is also zero.
TopCat22
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
There is no time inside a black hole. A black hole is a hole in time with the precipice being at the event horizon. A black hole is like a donut hole in the donut material making up our universe. When you pass the event horizon all time has ended for you and everyone and everything existing in our universe.

The rest of the "science" about what happens inside the event horizon is the "science of pink elephants".
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
There is no time inside a black hole
Correct, since it consists of (within the "event horizon" continuously-distributed, stationary electro-magnetic energy.. A massive black-body (cum laser) cavity having T=0 and no entropy..
brodix
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
ink,

"These resonant-fluctuations are not permanent kinetic energy and therefore T=0, and I suspect that entropy is also zero."

So time, like temperature, is an effect which emerges with measurable energy?

Also, given the overall relativity of a possibly infinite space, wouldn't all energy be balanced out(for every action...), such that it's all "standing waves?" We just happen to be dynamic points of reference within it and so our linear activity hasn't yet been "cancelled."
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
ink, "These resonant-fluctuations are not permanent kinetic energy and therefore T=0, and I suspect that entropy is also zero." So time, like temperature, is an effect which emerges with measurable energy?
Both emerge with kinetic energy: No KE, no motion and time cannot be defined or measured, Similarly ,no KE no temperature T=0.
Also, given the overall relativity of a possibly infinite space, wouldn't all energy be balanced out(for every action...), such that it's all "standing waves?" We just happen to be dynamic points of reference within it and so our linear activity hasn't yet been "cancelled."
I do not follow your argument here but if our universe is infinite in size it had to have existed for an "infinite" time. It would be in equilibrium so that time and temperature would not have existed. Our universe could however be embedded within infinite space and for this reason it is expanding to again in future merge with this space and to then end up with T=0.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
Correct, since it consists of (within the "event horizon" continuously-distributed, stationary electro-magnetic energy.. A massive black-body (cum laser) cavity having T=0 and no entropy.
If the time doesn't exist bellow event horizon, how its matter could concentrate inside the singularity beneath the event horizon?
You will notice that I used "event-horizon" within quotation marks. This boundary surface has NOTHING to do with "space-time". There is no singularity since gravity and a black hole has NOTHING to do with "space-time". The latter concept is not physically nor mathematically possible.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
ink,

"universe is infinite in size it had to have existed for an "infinite" time."

You would already seem to agree time, or the measure thereof, is an effect of action. So there would only be a present state and time is an effect of the activity occurring in it. The question then is whether this activity is simply a permanent condition, or was initiated. Keep in mind that on infinite scales, it is effectively in equilibrium, just that the particular primary fluctuations/cycles, of galaxies coalescing mass/energy and shedding radiation/energy, are much larger than our human scale. So I would think it is easier to assume it is a permanent condition, i.e., temporally infinite, than initiated.
Also keep in mind that the very concept of "initiation" is premised on the transient nature of form, given that energy is conserved. In an infinite universe, energy radiated from one area is replaced by energy radiated in from surrounding areas. Infinitely circular.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
ink,

Also keep in mind that the very concept of "initiation" is premised on the transient nature of form, given that energy is conserved. In an infinite universe, energy radiated from one area is replaced by energy radiated in from surrounding areas. Infinitely circular.
I disagree: Within an infinite universe the entropy must either be a maximum (on average no change and no time-direction) or at zero which gives the same result. In our universe entropy is neither which proves that our universe must have had a beginning and is still evolving towards a timeless state.
docile
Sep 06, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
ink,

Entropy only applies to a closed set and an infinite universe isn't closed.

A set is a unit and any unit exists in a larger context/environment. Even the Big Bang universe is currently being proposed as one of a multitude of such universes.

In this larger ecosystem, such entities/sets come and go, as the process of creation and dissolution moves onto new sets.

Energy might be in equilibrium, but to be energy, it still fluctuates and the scale of fluctuation would appear to be galactic.

The only change is ultimately cyclical. Beginning to end is just one cycle.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
OK, here's a human thought experiment: Consider a poker game, you define that diametrical cards always appear this way. Say Q&3, J&4, ... You watch the cards and assume this is a general truth and call it temperature, i.e. considering the possibilities more realistically and calculating the probabilities. In reality, this is only a possibility matrix, not actuality. In other words, if it is causal then you would be un-beatable at poker! So I might know how hot I am, but this is still non-causal! It's a random distribution from a defined set!

So I choose to define my sets and causality, i.e. only requirements are the field and the + & - !
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
Notice, I'm hotter when more distributions allow me to win, i.e. I have more states that I may occupy, Boltzmann_constant! Just a number ...
brodix
not rated yet Sep 06, 2015
Hyper,

Time/sequence isn't causal either. Yesterday doesn't cause today. The sun shining on a spinning planet creates this effect called days, as a consequence of the individual location on the planet. Causality is only the energy transition/transfer from one event to other. A rock hitting water causes waves, not one wave causing the next.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink,

Entropy only applies to a closed set and an infinite universe isn't closed.
Entropy can only reach a maximum within an adiabatic enclosure. In this equilibrium state there is still kinetic energy. When a system is not adiabatically enclosed and in forming an "infinite volume" entropy must decrease to zero. There is then no kinetic-energy. This also happens when the material within an adiabatic enclosure forms continuously-distributed, stationary EM energy: i.e. when resonantly trapping a light-wave within a cavity.

inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
Hyper,

Time/sequence isn't causal either. Yesterday doesn't cause today. The sun shining on a spinning planet creates this effect called days, as a consequence of the individual location on the planet. Causality is only the energy transition/transfer from one event to other. A rock hitting water causes waves, not one wave causing the next.
The motion of a moving rock is that of a coherent electromagnetic wave with a de Broglie wavelength. The Lorentz transformation demands that this must be so. Thus in this case it is actually one wave causing another.

BTW: According to Huygens' construction it is the leading wave-front causing the next leading wave-front.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink,

Point taken. That was a poor analogy. Though it is the direct transfer creating the first wave and feedback creating the succeeding waves.

My larger argument still stands though, that both time and temperature are effects and measures of activity occurring in the dimensionality of space and that consequently our own/the clock's position and motion are a factor in generating the measures, not some "fabric of spacetime."

Hyper's "possibility matrix" is a legitimate consequence of this subjectivity. More states is a broader range of reference points.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink,

Are you not assuming the particular source is the only source of energy?
Given all space has some level of energy, doesn't infinite space necessarily require the consequent energy?

There does seem to be some dynamic relation between mass energy and radiant energy, in that while one contracts and the other expands, the process of contracting mass does release much of its radiant energy at various stages and we haven't fully investigated what happens to radiant energy after it has traveled for billions of lightyears in a near absolute zero vacuum. Could the reason there is that nearly smooth level at 2.7 k be due to the "dew point" of some "condensation" effect, in which this energy collapses to a quantum point particle, thus a phase transition at that level, as mass begins to form out of the radiant energy.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
It's speculation, but I think there has to be some theoretical working up of a more cyclical model to tie up all the loose ends in the current one. Big Bang, black holes, inflation, dark energy are very large open question marks and while they might satisfy our particular observational predilections, future generations of theorists are not going to spend their lives and careers hitting their heads against the walls the current generation is insisting are not open to question. There will be a revolution at some point and everything will be open to question.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink,My larger argument still stands though, that both time and temperature are effects and measures of activity occurring in the dimensionality of space
AS long as you mean "kinetic-energy" when you use the word "activity" I agree fully.
and that consequently our own/the clock's position and motion are a factor in generating the measures, not some "fabric of spacetime."[/q[ A clock is a measuring instrument and like all instruments a perfect clock must measure time in exactly the same units UNDER ALL PHYSICAL CONDITIONS. Time rate cannot be different for two perfects clock moving relative to one another. Minkowski's space-time manifold is not just physically impossible but also violates the mathematics on which manifolds MUST be based.

Hyper's "possibility matrix" is a legitimate consequence of this subjectivity. More states is a broader range of reference points.
What "possibility matrix"?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink, Are you not assuming the particular source is the only source of energy? Given all space has some level of energy, doesn't infinite space necessarily require the consequent energy?
I do not like to use the term ""infinite" since infinity does not exist. Nobody has EVER travelled to infinity: Like Woody Allen stated "infinity is very long, especially towards the end". I think it is wrong for theoretical physicists to use this term as if it is a number that can be achieved. The concept only serves a mathematical purpose it cannot be measured by experiment.

There does seem to be some dynamic relation between mass energy and radiant energy,
Of course there is. It follows directly from Maxwell's equations and their concomitant Lorentz transformation that the mass-energy of a wave entity (both light and matter) is continuously-distributed electro-magnetic field-energy.

inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
It's speculation, but I think there has to be some theoretical working up of a more cyclical model to tie up all the loose ends in the current one. Big Bang, black holes, inflation, dark energy are very large open question marks and while they might satisfy our particular observational predilections, future generations of theorists are not going to spend their lives and careers hitting their heads against the walls the current generation is insisting are not open to question. There will be a revolution at some point and everything will be open to question.
This is long overdue and should have already materialised more than 50 years ago, if it were not for the fact that during the 20th century "peer-review" has become rabid censorship; which reeks of inquisition. I believe that my book "Why does E=mc2" can serve as a launching pad for such an overdue renewal in physics.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
Gobblety-Gook! All based on Einstein's flawed theory of relativity, which in turn was based on a flawed interpretation of electromagnetic radiation. It is the electromagnetic field that is curved in space, which was first measured in 1936 but received no interest by physicists then or now. All that is required is to plot the radiating field waves from the Mesny electromagnetic field wave equation to see the curved field waves.
Which measurement in 1936 are you talking about?
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink,

"A clock is a measuring instrument"

Yes and what it measures is an action. Now the argument for spacetime as the physical explanation for the math of General Relativity is that an accelerated clock, or one in a gravitational field will run slower. For example, clocks on satellites vs. the ground. All that really requires is for some effect to slow the action. For instance, as nothing can exceed C, the atomic activity in a moving frame will slow, so the combination of internal activity and external velocity doesn't exceed C. Also this will serve to shrink the size of the atomic structure, thus shrinking distance, therefore the measure of light speed remains constant to the distance. Basically a tautology. All this really means is there is an inherent equilibrium to space, given the frame with the fastest clock would be closest to it.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
To say it is due to the "fabric of spacetime" is similar to saying the mathematical efficacy of epicycles is due to giant cosmic gearwheels, in that it assumes the mathematical model represents the actual physical reality, not just the particular point of view of the modeler. Given we are both centered on this planet and perceive time as the present moving past to future.

Now if time really were a dimension along which the present moves, then logically a faster clock would move into he future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. Given it is a measure of a dynamic action, then a faster action uses energy quicker and so the faster clock will use up energy faster and so recede into the past faster. As in the proverbial example of the twins, where the one in the faster frame ages more than the one in the slower frame.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
As such, two clocks only measure the action of their particular dynamics and must be synchronized in order to record the same rate. So it really doesn't matter what rate they operate, they are both in the same present, like the satellite and ground clocks still co-exist.

That is why there is no Newtonian absolute flow of time. It is an effect of cumulative action, just like temperature.

Yes, infinity does not physically exist, nor does equilibrium/0. Therefore it doesn't need a causal explanation. This is my argument about space, that being unbound and undisturbed/absolute and infinite, it doesn't need geometry to create it. Geometry only models it and geometric models can neither be absolute or infinite. They are both references and bounds, because they define. They start with the point and move to the line, plane, volume. Yet a point is presumed to be dimensionless location and lines can presumably go to infinity, so the absolute and the infinite are still assumed.
syndicate_51
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
I declare this a scientific law... Ya know this is hypothesis at this point right?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink, "A clock is a measuring instrument". Yes and what it measures is an action. Now the argument for spacetime ... is that an accelerated clock, or one in a gravitational field will run slower
The argument is actually that TIME will slow down: This is impossible since the pre-selected unit of time IS per definition the same under ALL physical conditions. If this is not so, physics cannot be quantified in terms of time and Calculus will be WRONG!! Therefore the passing of time within two inertial reference frames (IRF's)moving relative to one another MUST be the SAME. If clocks show different time-units the clocks are not perfect clocks. This is also required by Galileo's arguments which demand that the laws of physics are the same within all IRF's. Identical perfect clocks in different IRF's measuring time using the SAME mechanism MUST keep time at the same rate ad infinitum. If not Galileo's principle of relativity is wrong! And we know that it is not wrong!
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
Yes, they are synchronized, but what is time? Is it an effect of action, or Newton's universal flow? Are you sure time isn't quantified in terms of physics?
It's not that the present is moving from past to future, but the future becomes past because what physically exists, i.e. the present, changes configuration. To wit, tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.
The measure of time is duration between events, yet duration is the state of what is present, as the events/ticks of the clock, happen. In which case it is those precise physical processes which are creating the effect that is being measured.
Which is more fundamental, the state of the present, or the physical events occurring within it?
Is there some measure of time that is not based on the happening of a specific physical process? Such as cycles of a cesium atom, or fractions of the motion of the earth.
Yes, we perceive the present moving past to future, but we still see the sun as rising and setting.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
Y
Yes, we perceive the present moving past to future, but we still see the sun as rising and setting.

I would not waste "Time" on that thought!
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
The argument is actually that TIME will slow down

I meant a clock in an accelerated frame will slow down. Its the action in that frame that slows.

We measure time by choosing a regular activity, like oscillations of an isolated cesium atom, but even irregular actions create change. For instance, the rotation of the planet is slightly irregular, because of all the tidal forces/moon, closeness to the sun, other planets, etc. Yet it is not this action is random, but due to specific input, that is too complex to isolate and all of which occurs in the state of the present.
Our current narrative perception assumes nature to be deterministic, because these processes yield a specific outcome and so it is assumed that as this applies throughout history, it must be pre-determined. Yet the input into any event only arrives with its occurrence and since information/energy travels at finite speeds, input cannot be fully known prior to the event, so neither can output.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
So that is why time is the present coalescing out of a probabilistic future and receding into a determined past. Events are first in the present, then in the past. The past is a residual effect of this process.

Hyper,

That is the nature of relativism. From our particular 3D frame, it is the sun that moves. Since Copernicus we now know it is only the solar system that is heliocentric. There is no universal frame, just subjective ones. Each of us is the center of our own frame and as such the centerpoint of our entire universe. In which case, everything moves relative to our point of view.
So as we perceive reality as flashes of mental cognition, it does seem to be this point of the present moving from one event to the next.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
The argument is actually that TIME will slow down


Like a bowling ball traveling at over light speed toward your head?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
The argument is actually that TIME will slow down


Like a bowling ball traveling at over light speed toward your head?

I say you are mistaken, either it has killed you, will never kill you, or some other thought you missed before death, will not explain why your head is forever pulverized!
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
Yes, they are synchronized, but what is time? Is it an effect of action, or Newton's universal flow?
YES!!!!! It IS Newton's universal flow or else we should not use Newton's CAL:CULUS!!!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
Note: My idea is not a theory but a simulation technique. So broad, necessary tools are forthcoming.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 07, 2015
ink,

Any ordered system with need a standard frame, both rate and coordinates. Does that make that particular ticking universal? What action would it measure, as everything exists in the present?

You said T=0 in a black hole. Does that mean there is no state of the present there, or no change to measure?

As ordered systems, tribal theologies like to claim universality as well.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
ink, Any ordered system with need a standard frame, both rate and coordinates. Does that make that particular ticking universal?
According to Galileo the laws of physics must be the same within all inertial reference frames when "not looking outside" such an IRF (See also Feynman's lectures). Thus the ticking of time MUST be at the same rate within all possible IRF's. To state that it is not, as Einstein has done, is a rejection of the principle of relativity. So the answer is yes: The ticking of time MUST be universal.

You said T=0 in a black hole. Does that mean there is no state of the present there, or no change to measure?
IT simply means that there is no kinetic-energy to measure. The state is "the present" but the energy is ALL rest-mass energy: Time still passes but it cannot be measured.

As ordered systems, tribal theologies like to claim universality as well.
Physics has nothing to do with tribal theologies: Any correspondence is fortuitous. .
brodix
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
ink,

Wasn't Einstein's premise that they are the same, given the speed of light remains constant?

As it is, that's not really what I'm arguing. My point is that we are looking at it backward. Just as we see the sun rising in the east and setting in the west and spent eons trying to explain how it moves, from Apollo's chariot, to giant cosmic gearwheels, before realizing it is the earth moving west to east.
Similarly we experience time as a sequence of events and so try to explain how the present moves from past to future, be it Newton's absolute flow, or the block time dimensionality of spacetime.
My point is it is the events being created and dissolved, so they go future to past and physically there is only this state of present activity.
So it is absolute, in the sense that the hand on the clock, the marker of the present, is the same for all clocks, even if the faces of the various clocks seem to move past it at different rates.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
I think one of the ironies here is the realization that as events are occurring, physics understands they are relativistic and subjective to one's point of perspective, yet after they are past, it is as though they become set in stone and are consequently deterministic of all subsequent events.

Given the reality is that the only remotely deterministic aspect is the inertia of the energy flowing through and creating them and this energy is consequently continuing to manifest a constantly dynamic present state. So that any form generated by past events is constantly being rearranged and manipulated within current conditions, according to the forces being applied.

As Henry Ford said, "History is bunk."
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
ink,

Wasn't Einstein's premise that they are the same, given the speed of light remains constant?
What do you mean with "they are the same"? To what does "they" refer?

inkosana
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
I think one of the ironies here is the realization that as events are occurring, physics understands they are relativistic and subjective to one's point of perspective, yet after they are past......,
They are only relativistic when one "looks outside" your own inertial reference frame at events that occur within other IRF's moving relative to you. An event occurring within your own IRF, so that you do not have to "look outside" to see such an event, is NOT a relativistic event since you do not need a relativistic coordinate-transformation to import this event into your own coordinate system. It is already occurring within your coordinate system.

brodix
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
ink,

"To what does "they" refer?"

"the ticking of time MUST be at the same rate within all possible IRF's."

"It is already occurring within your coordinate system."

Which would make it subjective.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
Which would make it subjective, not universal.
antigoracle
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
There is no such thing as Hawking Radiation.... it is the same thing as pink elephants forming just inside past the event horizon.... outside of our universe.

The particle passing though the event horizon would never actually pass through until just after the end of time

A BH, as we see it, is exactly like the nothingness into which the universe is expanding. So, it wouldn't be farfetched if the Big-Bang not only created the universe but that nothingness also.
Yeah I know other nutters have proposed that we live in a BH.
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
I believe that my book "Why does E=mc2" can serve as a launching pad for such an overdue renewal in physics.


Do you have a reference to this book.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
ink,

"To what does "they" refer?"

"the ticking of time MUST be at the same rate within all possible IRF's."

"It is already occurring within your coordinate system."

Which would make it subjective.
Not at all! The principle of relativity as brilliantly outlined by Galileo through his fictitious spokesperson Sylvatius to Simplicious is that the laws of physics are the same within ALL IRF's. The laws of physics must be INVARIANT: NOT COVARIANT under a relativistic coordinate-transformation (you do not need tensor-analysis). This means that a clock within any IRF must keep the same TIME-RATE that an identical clock MUST keep within any other IRF. If the clocks do not keep the same time-rate, as Einstein has wrongly claimed, the principle of relativity becomes null and void. The time-rate must this be universally the same.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
I believe that my book "Why does E=mc2" can serve as a launching pad for such an overdue renewal in physics.


Do you have a reference to this book.
Yes I have posted it above and it is:
http://www.amazon...tries*=0

I had to publish it through Kindle since mainstream theoretical physicists will not allow me to publish it anywhere else. I did not do the latter to make money, although money would be welcome. If I know your e-mail address I will send you a free copy. On the other hand when downloading it from Amazon Kindle the cost is only $6. It will not bankrupt you.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
According to me and logic, and math, and physics, and experience, and it all making no sense, what the **** are we trying to prove or disprove? Does anyone recall the initial proposition?
brodix
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
ink,

Nothing I'm saying questions any law of physics. If you have identical mechanisms, they will act in an identical manner and so record an identical duration. Now if some physical force were to cause either to slow, or speed up, then the laws of physics would require them to consequently record a changed duration.

My argument isn't to validate Einstein, but to say time and the recording thereof, is an effect of action, not the basis for it. Even Galileo understood this, with the insight of comparing his pulse to a swinging pendulum, that it was always just comparing one rate to another.
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
The laws of physics must be INVARIANT: [...] This means that a clock within any IRF must keep the same TIME-RATE that an identical clock MUST keep within any other IRF. If the clocks do not keep the same time-rate, as Einstein has wrongly claimed, the principle of relativity becomes null and void.


The principal of relativity just means that WITHIN THE SAME IRF, there is no experiment that can be performed that would inform the experimenter of his absolute state of motion. It does not say that the values & state of physical systems defined and used as coordinate references (a clock) between IRF must agree. The invariant physical quantities agreed upon by all IRF are those involving the space-time interval,.... this is why tensors are necessary, .....to express invariant physical quantities that are not coordinate dependent.
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 08, 2015
... IOW if one accepts the postulates of SR, ....the above stated along with the constancy of the speed of light,... then it follows that physical invariant quantities in which all IRF agree must be expressed using tensors,... which in turn means that coordinate dependent quantities are observer dependent and not invariant.
Bloodyorphan
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Assuming that space is the limiting factor of all forces, then a black hole can never exceed C no matter how dense or massive. Therefore no event horizon can actually form.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
If you have identical mechanisms, they will act in an identical manner and so record an identical duration.
Amen!
Now if some physical force were to cause either to slow, or speed up, then the laws of physics would require them to consequently record a changed duration.
Yes, but these laws do not require that the unit in which time is measured must change: The latter is what Einstein has claimed with his concept of "time-dilation": The "moving clock" keeps time in longer units than the "stationary clock". How would you know that you have a changed-duration when the unit of time changes In concert?
Even Galileo understood this, with the insight of comparing his pulse to a swinging pendulum, that it was always just comparing one rate to another.
Correct! And since then we have chosen the second as the standard rate relative to which all rates must be compared. This means that perfect clocks must under all physics conditions keep time at this SAME rate.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
The principal (principle?) of relativity just means that WITHIN THE SAME IRF, there is no experiment that can be performed that would inform the experimenter of his absolute state of motion.
That is EXACTLY what I am saying.
It does not say that the values & state of physical systems defined and used as coordinate references (a clock) between IRF must agree.
You forget that the corollary is that the same experiment done in different IRF's must give the same result. Thus identical perfect clocks measuring time by means of the same physics-mechanism MUST keep the same time-rate within all IRF's. So how can time be simultaneously different in order to be part of an "invariant space-time interval"? It would only be possible when the "space-time" interval s is given by s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+(ct)^2. NOT for s^2=x^2+y^2+z^^2-MINUS-(ct)^2. The latter is DEMANDED by the simple algebra of manifolds: Minkowski was not a very good mathematician.
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
The Lorentz signature form of the spacetime interval allows the 'spacetime distance' between spacetime events to be agreed upon by all IRF observers.

You forget that the corollary....[....] identical perfect clocks measuring time by means of the same physics-mechanism MUST keep the same time-rate within all IRF's.


You forget the postulate, or rather the derived result from the above stated two postulates, that absolute time rate and absolute space distance are not laws of physics. That's what relativity means.

A clock is just a physical system, that is subject to relativity, that we as human observers define as "being" time. Lets say that the clock is a light-clock, by which I mean a photon (or coherent EM wave) reflecting between two parallel mirrors....

Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
.... it follows that the ticks of this light-clock will be different for different IRF's given the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light; An observer in the same IRF as the clock would 'see' the photon reflecting vertically back and forth, along his y axis coordinates,....

...while a different IRF observer would see the above light-clock photon, (that is not in his IRF), moving in a saw-tooth pattern with respect to his own coordinates. The latter IRF observer (S) therefore "sees" the former IRF observer's light-clock (M) ticking slower,... because the light-clock photon is moving through more of the "his spatial" coordinates.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2015
@inkosana '...It would only be possible when the "space-time" interval s is given by s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+(ct)^2. NOT for s^2=x^2+y^2+z^^2-MINUS-(ct)^2....' Not too sure if I'm taking your comment out of context here but didn't this equation come from 'event space', IF's and the 'light cone'. That is to say that the expanding spherical wave front of a light flash is given the form x ² + y ² + z ² = c ² t ² so that we have for an event εD s ² = x ² + y ² + z ² - c ² t ² This is to ensure the nomenclature of being 'spacelike' when ε = -1, 'lightlike' for time & distance equality and 'timelike' for +1.
just a thought
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
.... and given the postulate of the constancy of c, this can only mean that what we define as "time" must be observer dependent, ....IRF dependent,.... coordinate dependent.

Likewise one even could generate observer dependent forces, called fictitious forces, that are not invariant 'laws of physics' but are rather completely generated by an observers state of motion, in a non-IRF frame relative to a IRF, as in the Coriolis_effect. Do you reject this fact as well then?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
You forget the postulate, or rather the derived result from the above stated two postulates, that absolute time rate and absolute space distance are not laws of physics.
Where has this been derived in terms of logic? Nowhere!!! These so-called derivations are all logically flawed to such an extent that the conclusions reached are absurd and should for this reason be rejected in terms of the principle of reductio ad absurdum. I treat this in minute detail in my book.

A clock is just a physical system, that is subject to relativity, that we as human observers define as "being" time. Lets say that the clock is a light-clock, by which I mean a photon (or coherent EM wave) reflecting between two parallel mirrors....
I have treated the light clock CORRECTLY in my book and DERIVED the Lorentz transformation FROM AN INCLINED LIGHT CLOCK in terms of ABSOLUTE TIME that is the SAME EVERYWHERE WITHIN ALL REFERENCE FRAMES AT THE SAME INSTANT IN TIME.

docile
Sep 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2015
@Mimath224,... it is to equate the space-time interval with another sense of time called 'proper-time',... Johan confuses the two....

ds² = c²dτ²

.... which is distinct from 'coordinate-time'. All clocks "measure" proper-time, so that an observer moving with the clocks IRF regards his proper-time to be the same as his coordinate time because he has no spatial velocity to "take away" from the invariant space-time interval (reason for the Lorentz signature),..... whereas an observer (S) seeing the latter observer (M) moving in terms of his (S) coordinates would find the relation between his (S) coordinate-time and the relativily moving observer (M) proper-time to be....

Δτ = ∫γdt

.... γ being the Lorentz factor dependent on the clocks (M) velocity as expressed in (S) coordinates.

For an observer that is in the same IRF as the clock, this reduces to ....

Δτ= dt,.... because spatial components would be zero.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
.... it follows that the ticks of this light-clock will be different for different IRF's given the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light; An observer in the same IRF as the clock would 'see' the photon reflecting vertically back and forth, along his y axis coordinates,
AND ANOTHER OBSERVER who is NOT co-moving with the moving clock will also see the same for his OWN clock within his OWN IRF . This fact is called Galileo's principle of inertia. So you are still believing that the Vatican was correct when they rejected this principle?

...while a different IRF observer would see the above light-clock photon, (that is not in his IRF), moving in a saw-tooth pattern with respect to his own coordinates.
So?? We know that this is what relative motion causes: A ball thrown into the air within any IRF moves straight up. But when seen from another IRF it moves at an angle. This does not mean that it is moving at an angle within the IRF is which it has been launched.
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
I'...FROM AN INCLINED LIGHT CLOCK in terms of ABSOLUTE TIME ...' but if we incline the clock away from the original set don't we now have to apply a change of coordinates transformation to maintain distance invariant?
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
cont. By light clock I understand you to mean a clock that will measure the time of light travel. Light itself doesn't 'have a clock' because light does not experience time...well, under today's definitions.
Yes, I think we are a bit off topic eh? Ha!
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2015
..but didn't this equation come from 'event space', ..
NO! "Event space" and the light cone comes from this equation: Not the other way around.
That is to say that the expanding spherical wave front of a light flash is given the form x ² + y ² + z ² = c ² t ²
Correct! Which means that (ct)^2 can ONLY be a hypotenuse within three dimensional (x,y,z) space. It cannot be an extra fourth coordinate EVER.
so that we have for an event εD s ² = x ² + y ² + z ² - c ² t ²
Where does the non-zero s now come from? From Alice's wonderland?
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
...while a different IRF observer would see the above light-clock photon, (that is not in his IRF), moving in a saw-tooth pattern with respect to his own coordinates.

So?? We know that this is what relative motion causes: A ball thrown into the air within any IRF moves straight up. But when seen from another IRF it moves at an angle.


Correct,... So...., 1) given that the angled saw-tooth coordinate-path is longer than the straight up and down path, 2) both relative observers are taking the same mechanism light-clock in their own IRF to represent time for them, 3) the constancy of c, ...... the time of the clock moving in (M) IRF, as expressed in (S) coordinates is ticking slower.

inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2015
This is to ensure the nomenclature of being 'spacelike' when ε = -1, 'lightlike' for time & distance equality and 'timelike' for +1.
This is nonsense since it violates the mathematical rules that must apply: If you have a 4D manifold one MUST have that s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2 where w^2 MUST be positive. If w^2 is not positive the equation becomes x^2+y^2+z^2=(s^2+w^2)=r^2, where r is the magnitude of the position vector in 3D space. For w^2=MINUS(ct)^2 your remain in 3D space x,y,z. This is elementary linear algebra which is taught in secondary schools at present.
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
By light clock I understand you to mean a clock that will measure the time of light travel. Light itself doesn't 'have a clock' because light does not experience time...well, under today's definitions.


That's correct, a light-clock is just a physical arrangement,... as stated above, not measuring "time" per se [see my definition of physical time above], but rather what we define to BE time,.. i.e. measuring the number of reflections (ticks) between two mirrors placed at some arbitrary distance apart.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
.... and given the postulate of the constancy of c, this can only mean that what we define as "time" must be observer dependent, ....IRF dependent,.... coordinate dependent.
No it is not TIME that is observer dependent but the position of a wave-front that is observer dependent. When the wave-front on the moving clock is observed by its co-moving observer to VERTICALLY reach the top mirror after it has moved through the vertical distance L in time t so that L=ct, this same wave-front, as observed by the other observer must also only have moved through a distance L=ct BUT this distance is now not vertical. If the latter observer concludes from this observation that the wave-front of the moving clock has not yet reached the top mirror within the IRF of this clock, the latter observer is making a wrong deduction. He is NOT observing what the real situation is at the clock since he is not co-moving with the clock. .

inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
@Mimath224,... it is to equate the space-time interval with another sense of time called 'proper-time',... Johan confuses the two....

ds² = c²dτ²

.... which is distinct from 'coordinate-time'. There is no such thing as "proper time" since s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2-MINUS-(ct)^2 cannot be the hypotenuse of a position-vector in a 4D manifold EVER!!
All clocks "measure" proper-time, so that an observer moving with the clocks IRF regards his proper-time to be the same as his coordinate time because he has no spatial velocity to "take away" from the invariant space-time interval (reason for the Lorentz signature),..... whereas an observer (S) seeing the latter observer (M) moving in terms of his (S) coordinates would find the relation between his (S) coordinate-time and the relativily moving observer (M) proper-time to be..
This is utter nonsense. It only proves how hype can become accepted as physics when it is repeated often enough: The Goebbels-effect.

inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
I'...FROM AN INCLINED LIGHT CLOCK in terms of ABSOLUTE TIME ...' but if we incline the clock away from the original set don't we now have to apply a change of coordinates transformation to maintain distance invariant?
NO! WHY? You have my book: Why do you not read section 3 where I do the derivat6ions for a vertical clock and an inclined clock? Or are you too scared you might understand it and this will make a dent in the dogma you WANT to believe.
brodix
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2015
ink,

"Correct! And since then we have chosen the second as the standard rate relative to which all rates must be compared. This means that perfect clocks must under all physics conditions keep time at this SAME rate."

And what are we measuring, other than the state of the present, as particular events occur. As you say, we wouldn't know if these marks change, other than comparing them to other rates of change. There is no other way to define a unit of time, other than the duration, the state of the present, as the cycle/oscillation/events occur. Time is an effect of action occurring. It does not exist otherwise.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
And what are we measuring, other than the state of the present, as particular events occur. As you say, we wouldn't know if these marks change, other than comparing them to other rates of change. There is no other way to define a unit of time, other than the duration, the state of the present, as the cycle/oscillation/events occur. Time is an effect of action occurring. It does not exist otherwise.
Obviously, if no action is taking place time would not be needed as a concept. But just like space we know that time exists as a reality even when we are isolated from any action taking place. And that to model physics we must choose standard units to measure time just as we must choose standard units when we measure distance. The units cannot change when the physical conditions change since the are pre-selected to remain absolute. If this is not the case quantitative physics will not be possible.
antigoracle
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Thermodynamic time…. is not really time at all but rather emergent statistical chance. "If you ask an atom about the arrow of time, it will laugh in your face."- Wheeler

What if you ask one that has reached it's half life?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Thermodynamic time…. is not really time at all but rather emergent statistical chance. "If you ask an atom about the arrow of time, it will laugh in your face."- Wheeler

What if you ask one that has reached it's half life?
Poor John Archibald Wheeler: He thought that you can converse with inanimate matter; and that matter is so devious that it knows when you are looking at it; and even have the mental ability to know what you are going to do in the future. Absurdity to the highest degree.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
ink,

"But just like space we know that time exists as a reality even when we are isolated from any action taking place."

How? The activity of our mind?

If no mental activity is taking place, wouldn't that be a flatline on the EEG? Equilibrium.

If no activity is taking place, then there would be no other configuration than what is, therefore no past configuration and no possibility of a future configuration. There would only be a present state. T=0.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Remember past and future do not physically exist, because the energy to manifest these other configurations is only manifesting the present state. So in order for time, the change of the present configuration to occur, there has to be a dynamic process manifesting that change and what we measure are rates of that change. Duration is not external to some point of the present. It is the present, as the events occur.
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Thermodynamic time…. is not really time at all but rather emergent statistical chance. "If you ask an atom about the arrow of time, it will laugh in your face."- Wheeler

What if you ask one that has reached it's half life?


The quote refers to the arrow of time deemed to exist on account of the statistical foundation of thermodynamics, entropy,.... however, the disintegration of a particular atom due to radioactive decay is a function of QM and as such is intrinsically indeterminate. The half-life value given to a particular element is statistically based,... so the atom would again "laugh in your face".

antigoracle
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
So the difference between "foundation" and "based" is that one is laughable?
Thanks for a whole lotta nothing.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
OK, I see no one here that knows the fact that the school for PhD Theoretical Physicist doesn't know; but everyone here knows. Simply visualize the + and the - within a 4D space. Describe any point. See the instability of a + and - together. How many configuration. Is this state stable within all fields? Please stop this mental masturbation and lets get on with molecular controls through simulation, infinite precision based upon what we can calculate. Uncertainty is not defined by Plancks constant, unsure of what it actually is relative to the + and -. What can be defined as a set of initial conditions that define the entire space-time. There are no limits, time and space at a single point is only a mathematical description of reality. No one really knows what the + and - really are. Time does not exist without the other 3 dimensions, there is no dichotomy. If you move your head and the amplitude of what you are hearing does not vary from ear to ear, it's probably in your
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
What's laughable is the knowledge of our ignorance and the insistence of those that do not know they do not know and have no tools to learn, while displaying absolute knowledge of everything! First define a definitive tool to search this reality. We may never know what the "+" and the "-" are. Please make no assumptions! Assumptions always get in the way of real understanding. Use only empiricism. This yang is very tiring.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
ink, But just like space we know that time exists as a reality even when we are isolated from any action taking place." How? The activity of our mind?
Close yourself in a box within which there is no activity, not even by you movingh. Does time stop to pass within the box? It might feel like it but this is subjective.
If no mental activity is taking place, wouldn't that be a flatline on the EEG? Equilibrium.
Even though no activity is occurring within the brains of living theoretical physicists, does not mean that there is no activity within our universe.
If no activity is taking place, then there would be no other configuration than what is, therefore no past configuration and no possibility of a future configuration.
But activity is taking place in our universe. If this were not so you would not have been borne to be here at this instant of NOW which MUST the same NOW everywhere at this instant in time in our universe.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2015
Defining the speed of light as a constant while ignoring the speed of the wave-front is a mistake. Defining mass as some kind of non-existent Higgs field is only in the mind of Higgs. These theories are without logic or empiricism. Get real!
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
The quote refers to the arrow of time deemed to exist on account of the statistical foundation of thermodynamics, entropy,....
Correct.
however, the disintegration of a particular atom due to radioactive decay is a function of QM and as such is intrinsically indeterminate.
In the same way as the jump of an atom that diffuses through a solid is indeterminate.
The half-life value given to a particular element is statistically based,... so the atom would again "laugh in your face".
Yes it is statistical but NOT because QM is being indeterminate: The latter concept is based on Born's hallucinations and fantasies!.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Please use hindsight and available knowledge at the time of definition. Compare this to modern tools and knowledge. We always throw out silly assumptions, like the earth is flat. We now have great tools that may give us controls to remove our ignorance. Mass does not describe all. Try only the "+" and the "-"; calling these protons and electrons are ok, but anti-protons and anti-electrons are an assumption of men without proper knowledge. The last 100 years in theoretical physics obviously requires an up-date! I conjecture we will redefine our universal constants while we dismiss GR and the Standard Model.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Trying to define if Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead with no measurements is absurd. Why would this define physical law?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
The wave equation defines wave activity and we infer the possibility states of the "+" and "-". Why not define the initial state of the "+" and the "-" within a properly defined 4D space for any radio-active atom. See why it is radioactive and stop using assumptions and tools without the ability to define certainty.

Challenge, put me in charge of a super computer and a set of programmers to define my simulator. Then lets have this discussion again. Time and space, LOL!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Better, will someone logically explain my error. I really would like to know. Oh, forgot, my method has never been applied and our society does not make necessary tools available to the public without an absurdity, money. I can simulate tiny atoms in my head, but a full description requires tools I do not have. Is this a reason for denial?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
It follows directly from the Lorentz transformation that mass is proportional to electromagnetic energy.
No it does not.
Yes it does: See section 5 of my book "Why does E=mc2" and then show me where my derivation of this is wrong. It is disconcerting that people react dogmatically instead of weighing the arguments of another person. Why are you acting this way? This is not the way a real scientist should act.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
The science is made by reasonable persons with honest atitude to the facts. Not by emotionally unstable personalities.

You just excluded yourself.
So have YOU!!!
brodix
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
ink,

"But activity is taking place in our universe. If this were not so you would not have been borne to be here at this instant of NOW which MUST the same NOW everywhere at this instant in time in our universe."

Exactly. There is only this state of the present and the change occurring in it creates time. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. All we measure and experience is this physical change. Anything beyond that is mental projection.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Exactly. There is only this state of the present and the change occurring in it creates time. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. All we measure and experience is this physical change. Anything beyond that is mental projection.
You are arguing philosophy. I am doing physics according to which I ask two questions: (1) can I and other people jointly experience time and (2). Can we define a unit to measure it with a suitable apparatus One can do this with time: So time is a physical REALITY that must be measured in terms of the same units under all physics-conditions. One needs this in order to use time consistently. If time units must change when the physics-conditions change, quantifiable physics will be impossible. We would not know Artha from Martha. This is what Einstein missed.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Better, will someone logically explain my error. I really would like to know. Oh, forgot, my method has never been applied and our society does not make necessary tools available to the public without an absurdity, money. I can simulate tiny atoms in my head, but a full description requires tools I do not have. Is this a reason for denial?

The "lack" of resources is the enemy of Truth." Rufus vs "Resources are the enemy of imagination." Einstein.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
Touch a hot stove and tell me it isn't a physical reality. Kelvin is a fairly stable unit of measure. As well as celsius. Fahrenheit pretty effectively reflects the range most appropriate for human existence. These are measures of physical activity, just like rotations of the planet, or oscillations of a cesium atom.
Quantifiable physics would be completely impossible without stable thermal units of measure.
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 09, 2015
@inkosana '...are you too scared you might understand it and this will make a dent in the dogma you WANT to believe...' Why must you get personal? Don't try to trap me into and argument about your book HERE, you already have my views. The equations I've quoted come from standard texts on elementary Cartesian Tensors.

@Noumenon '@Mimath224,... it is to equate the space-time interval with another sense of time called 'proper-time',... Johan confuses the two....'
(Sorry about delay it seems that I don't always get an alert when there's a new comment.)
Yes, Bohm highlights what you post quite well, re SR and an accelerating frame.
Noumenon, Penrose also has thoughts about the entropy of BH although from a phase space rather than a configuration space standpoint. My interpretation of that is the singularity still has 'space' in which there can be still be an increase in entropy coming from fluctuation zero e in a configuration mode to increase e for phase space. Any thoughts?
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2015
@inkosana '...are you too scared you might understand it and this will make a dent in the dogma you WANT to believe...' Why must you get personal?
So when I ask you simple question I get "personal". Please explain your logic.
Don't try to trap me into and argument about your book HERE, you already have my views.
The only view I have is that your brain switches off when you encounter a word you do not like. That is not a scientific view. If I had the same mentality when it came to my students not a single one of them would have passed. You see I am a well-balanced person who study content not style to come to a conclusion.
The equations I've quoted come from standard texts on elementary Cartesian Tensors.
The symmetry of tensors are ONLY valid when you have two coordinate systems which are stationary relative to on e another: That is well explained in section 2 in my book. You preferred to wallow in "horseshit". Enjoy it!
viko_mx
3 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2015
The man who considered his diploma as an investment can not be true scientist and inventor. In the best case will become freeloader of the system and its passionate defender. In this way he will have the opportunity to protect his investment and gain social economic dividends derived from it. This is the reason why in "scientific" (rather philosophical) communities yet are discussed fictional physical phenomena as black holes, energy and matter, that does not exist in our physical reality.
antigoracle
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
If time units must change when the physics-conditions change, quantifiable physics will be impossible. We would not know Artha from Martha. This is what Einstein missed.

What if the change in physics-condition is related to the change in time?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
If time units must change when the physics-conditions change, quantifiable physics will be impossible. We would not know Artha from Martha. This is what Einstein missed.

What if the change in physics-condition is related to the change in time?
A good question. If this could be so we have to rewrite physics starting with Galileo's principle of relativity as well as Einstein's own conclusion that the time within an inertial reference frame (IRF) must be everywhere the same at any instant in time independent of the change in physics-conditions within that IRF (read his 1905 paper). Since according to Galileo the laws of physics MUST be exactly the same within ALL IRF's, identical clocks which measure time according to the same laws of physics must measure identical time-rates within all IRF's. If they do not, like Einstein has claimed, then one MUST reject Galileo's concept of relativity. But Einstein has claimed that his theory is based on the same concept!
antigoracle
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
inksona, does the experimental evidence, that has measured the gradient in time relative to height above the earth's surface, prove Einstein wrong, or right?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
inksona, does the experimental evidence, that has measured the gradient in time relative to height above the earth's surface, prove Einstein wrong, or right?
This is an interesting question. If the clock's mechanism depends on the speed of light it probably means that the clock used measured incorrectly owing to its position in the field of gravity since the speed of light decreases with an increase in gravity. This thus means that the clock is not perfect to measure the fact that time units can per definition not change when the physical conditions change. If the clocks were perfect under all physics conditions they should measure the same time at all positions within the field of gravity. Where Einstein is wrong is to claim that space-time is curved in a field of gravity. Gravity affects the speed of light since it changes the permittivity and permeability: Not because it curves "space-time", since "space-time" is physically AND mathematically impossible.
antigoracle
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
inkosana, here's an idea, time is analogous to magnetism. In that, the stronger the magnet, the stronger the force, which of course weakens with distance. Likewise, the larger the mass, the slower time runs as you approach it. Gravity is just a manifestation of this gradient in time observed by us.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
ink,

What is perfect time and where is evidence of it, as opposed to the rate of change actually being measured? Is this platonic time?
Unless you can point to evidence, it would seem to be an unsupported belief.
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
@inkosana yes this is one of the points I've, as a layman, been unable to decide upon. You prefer permittivity and permeability as the reason while others dispute Einstein differently. One quote is '...'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is....' The equation given is similar to one in that book which I have. However, in this instance it's claimed that Einstein admits the slowing of light. Therein lies my problem. In the book Einstein refers to the CLOCKS (of similar construction) used to measure c as running different by a factor of (1+Phi/c²) and is referring to UNIFORM grav field. Einsteins talks of the frequency of light being dependent on the grav field and not the v of c. The permittivity and permeability of space also seems a hotly debated topic, which I can appreciate, that is, is 'free space' an ideal or real? (cont)
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 10, 2015
cont. Einstein also predicts the 'deflection' of light by grav field but then that doesn't clarify as to what really happens to light during that journey. Yes there is the geometrical approach, that is the path of light 'dips' or changes the route by following a contour but I have problems with that too especially on topic with BH's etc. At this stage I search for different views and that's why I read articles here...and elsewhere on the net.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
here's an idea, time is analogous to magnetism. In that, the stronger the magnet, the stronger the force, which of course weakens with distance. Likewise, the larger the mass, the slower time runs as you approach it. Gravity is just a manifestation of this gradient in time observed by us.
I disagree. Distance is measured in terms of PREDEFINED STANDARD units (meters) If a meter-stick becomes shorter under different physics conditions, it does not measure the CORRECT distance The units MUST stay the same: Therefore when the meter-stick shrinks the measurement must be CORRECTED to give distance in the correct units.
TIME is also measured in PRE-DEFINED STANDARD units. (seconds). If a clock keeps a different time-rate when the physics-conditions change it is NOT measuring the actual CORRECT time-rate. Therefore the measured time MUST be corrected to obtain the actual time-rate which MUST per definition be the same under ALL physics-conditions.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
Gravity can slow down a clock's rate but this is not slowing down the PREDEFINED unit in which all time must be measured under all physics conditions. For example, a pendulum clock keeps faster time when gravity increases while an atomic clock keeps slower time. The reason for the latter is that the speed of light slows down when gravity increases, and since the frequency of light is proportional to the speed of light the frequency of the atomic clock decreases. This DOES NOT mean that time itself is going slower.

Since the gravity-field refracts light, so that the speed of light becomes less with an increase in gravity, a wave-front of light will follow a curved path as gravity increases, just as it does within glass when the optical density increases. To conclude from this that space is curved is utter stupidity.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
ink, What is perfect time and where is evidence of it, as opposed to the rate of change actually being measured? Is this platonic time?
Unless you can point to evidence, it would seem to be an unsupported belief.
Where is the perfect distance and where is evidence of it? All I know is that it is impossible to do quantitative physics in terms of Calculus (which is what has worked so far) if pre-defied length- and time-units are not cast in stone. And since they are predefined, these are the units in which distance and time MUST be measured under all physics-conditions. If the measuring apparatuses (meter-stick and clock) measure in different units, since the physics-conditions affect the apparatuses, then the units must be corrected to obtain physics results that can be used and compared quantitatively. Thus it is utter nonsense to claim that time units can be different within two IRF's moving relative to one another. If this could be so, doing physics is a fantasy!
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
@Mimath224
@inkosana yes this is one of the points I've, as a layman, been unable to decide upon. You prefer permittivity and permeability as the reason while others dispute Einstein differently. One quote is '...'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is....'
. It is your commons sense coming to your rescue. Modern theoretical physicists distrust common sense and intuition and therefore embrace fantasies as reality. Unfortunately Einstein started this trend in 1905: He was a genius but he jumped to conclusions which are absurd and that could not be logically substantiated by his initial genial insight. In Special Relativity his wrong conclusions are "time-dilation" and "length-contraction"". In the photo-electric-effect his wrong conclusion was that light can ONLY be emitted as photon-waves.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
ink,

Lots of things don't work without an agreed upon framework. Societies don't work without an agreed upon code of ethics. The problem has been trying to understand if this framework is absolute, divinely ordained, platonic, etc, or whether it is emergent.

Given we only detect time as an effect of action, it would seem to be similar to temperature, of which physics also requires standard measures.

Space is much more problematic, given the current mathematical universe hypothesis that it emerges from geometry and geometry supposedly emerges from the location of the dimensionless point. I would argue that it is in fact absolute, given an equilibrium state is implicit in relativity, as the frame with the fastest clocks and longest distances would be the one closest to it.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
ink, Lots of things don't work without an agreed upon framework. Societies don't work without an agreed upon code of ethics. The problem has been trying to understand if this framework is absolute, divinely ordained, platonic, etc, or whether it is emergent.
These are philosophical questions which cannot be determined by experiment, and although important, they thus fall outside the scope of physics research until experimental data can be found that brings it into the fold of physics.
Given we only detect time as an effect of action, it would seem to be similar to temperature, of which physics also requires standard measures.
Time and temperature are closely related. Without time kinetic-energy cannot exist and therefore also not temperature.
continued
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
@inkosana '.... It is your commons sense coming to your rescue. Modern...' well if it is it's been there a long time, more than 30 years. In industry I went along the applied route rather than the pure math route which my above post of of the 3rd Sept echoes. Indeed, to stay on topic, the first couple of lines of this article was responsible for remembering a particular lecture I attended where the well known and famous speaker on Astronomy said just what I mentioned in my post. IF there was infinitely dense singularity there where the speed of sound might also be infinite then surely there would be a point where the (infinite) speed of would reach the BH's escape v. So shouldn't our ears be 'ringing'? When more theoretical work was published, years later this speaker retracted that idea. (cont)
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
Space is much more problematic, given the current mathematical universe hypothesis that it emerges from geometry and geometry supposedly emerges from the location of the dimensionless point. I would argue that it is in fact absolute, given an equilibrium state is implicit in relativity, as the frame with the fastest clocks and longest distances would be the one closest to it.

There is no experimental evidence that this is so. There are no frames with faster time-rates: This is only so in fantasyland. The time rate (unit of time) is the SAME under ALL physics conditions, and distances does not change from one IRF to another. Only the length of moving matter increases in the direction of motion since matter like light is a wave-entity consisting of EM energy. That is why one can derive the de Broglie wavelength for ANY matter-entity ( electron to Jupiter) from the Lorentz-transformation.
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
(cont again on topic) Nor do I necessarily agree with the 'holographic' principles mentioned in this article as I tend to lean towards the view of Penrose that classical entropy can deal with past, present and future (along with a few other assumptions etc) just as well. However, as a layman it's easy for others to try and overwhelm me with arguments to the contrary and know that it would take considerable time for me, and other such laymen, to research what the 'expert' says. But that's the price of posting opinions, isn't it, Ha!
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
@inkosana '.... It is your commons sense coming to your rescue. Modern...' well if it is it's been there a long time, more than 30 years. In industry I went along the applied route rather than the pure math route which my above post of the 3rd Sept echoes.
It also saved me to divert from theoretical physics to engineering after my MSc.
..lecture I attended where the well known and famous speaker on Astronomy said just what I mentioned in my post. IF there was infinitely dense singularity
Infinite does not exist as a quantifiable number:
Therefore infinite density is impossible. there where the speed of sound might also be infinite then surely there would be a point where the (infinite) speed of would reach the BH's escape v.
To have a sound-wave one requires kinetic-energy, and the latter cannot manifest within a point-singularity. That is why an infinite temperature can also not exist within a point-singularity.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
Nor do I necessarily agree with the 'holographic' principles mentioned in this article as I tend to lean towards the view of Penrose that classical entropy can deal with past, present and future (along with a few other assumptions etc) just as well.
IMO The mistake Penrose and his colleagues like Hawking make is to assume that there was an infinite temperature within a singularity which demands starting off with high-entropy "within the singularity". It seems more logical to assume that the beginning must have been an inflation of continuous stationary energy without any kinetic-energy component and thus no entropy: Kinetic energy only came into being when this continuous non-kinetic energy started to precipitate neutrons which decayed into protons and electrons. Motion and collision only then started. I do not believe that the "particles" we are creating in accelerators existed before the precipitation of neutrons.
Mimath224
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
@inkosana, This is still a very hot topic among those mentioned and one that I continue to read about. Although Penrose does use derivations of Hawking etc one gets the feeling he is not wholly comfortable with it. Nevertheless, unless someone creates a BH in the lab from some principle or other the arguments will probably outlive me, Ha!
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
@Mimath, A stationary electron is a "black-hole" since it can absorb light and stops this light to become stationary EM-energy, which remains stationary within the electron-wave for a very long electronic-time. The models used for BH, based on Einstein's general theory of relativity, are wrong since they require division by zero to get the "infinite singularity". In this respect it is worthwhile to google Stephen Crothers. His supervisor refused to supervise him any further when he started to discover these childish mistakes. His supervisor could not prove him wrong but was too scared to confront the status quo.
brodix
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
ink,
"These are philosophical questions which cannot be determined by experiment, and although important, they thus fall outside the scope of physics research until experimental data can be found that brings it into the fold of physics."

Am I to assume you have never read much history? Which examples do you want of societies needing a common framework to function? Might North and South Korea serve as a useful test case of different frames leading to a split in society?

You are still not explaining how pre-defined units of time is analogous to perfect time. We can only measure actual actions and it is an effect of those actions on which our units of time are based. There is no evidence of a perfect, or absolute time. Yes, we need pre-defined units to model physics, but any actual form of clock is based on some specific action.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
@inkosana
No, a stationary electron will move according to the field, i.e. radiation or light as you call it. Within a containment, such as an atom, motion is somewhat inhibited sense it will be felt by the entire atom, else may cause disruption of stability. So no, an electron does not absorb energy, it is a source, therefore will reproduce the oscillation according to polarization. Within a field of these "+" and "-" it may even cause a different containment, i.e. change state to a higher state. See studies upon the laser. better study Maxwell, not GR.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
Which examples do you want of societies needing a common framework to function? Might North and South Korea serve as a useful test case of different frames leading to a split in society?
What has this got to do with physics? Physics is based on models which MUST be continuously experimentally and logically tested: And rejected as soon as they fail.
You are still not explaining how pre-defined units of time is analogous to perfect time.
After you have defined a pre-select a unit of time, ALL perfect clocks MUST keep time in terms of this unit. In what other unit than the pre-selected unit can a perfect clock keep time?
We can only measure actual actions and it is an effect of those actions on which our units of time are based.
And to quantify these actions we use predefined units that MUST be the SAME under ALL physics-conditions. (continued)
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
There is no evidence of a perfect, or absolute time.
On the contrary, there is NO evidence whatsoever of relative time.
Yes, we need pre-defined units to model physics, but any actual form of clock is based on some specific action.
So what? Therefore such a clock must be calibrated to give time in terms of the pre-selected, standardised units of time under the physics-conditions that this clock finds itself: Therefore a perfect clock must be defined as a clock that keeps time in terms of the SAME units under all possible physics-conditions: i.e. its time-rate cannot change simply because it is moving relative to another identical perfect clock!. If it does change such a clock IS NOT a perfect clock that records the actual time.

brodix
not rated yet Sep 11, 2015
ink,

"Physics is based on models which MUST be continuously experimentally and logically tested: And rejected as soon as they fail."

Unless it is astronomy, in which case you assume enormous invisible forces of nature to fill the gaps between theory and observation.

"After you have defined a pre-select a unit of time, ALL perfect clocks MUST keep time in terms of this unit. In what other unit than the pre-selected unit can a perfect clock keep time?"

Can you name a unit of time that isn't based on and measured by some physical action?

inkosana
not rated yet Sep 12, 2015
...forces of nature. to fill the gaps between theory and observation.
For as long as you cannot experimentally prove that such forces exist, it is speculation. Theoretical physicists have become so arrogant that they believe that their claims, based on their models MUST be reality. For this reason they accept that the little bit of noise that they measured at CERN gives matter rest-mass, even though it is impossible to EVER prove this by experiment.
Can you name a unit of time that isn't based on and measured by some physical action?
The length-unit of one meter initially originated by "the physical action" of making two marks on a platinum-iridium rod kept at 0 Celsius. This does not mean that this unit changes when the temperature changes. This unit is PER DEFINITION the SAME under ALL physics-conditions. The same is valid the time-unit (sec) chosen under specific physics conditions. PER DEFINITION it MUST the same under ALL physics-conditions.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 12, 2015
If units are not the same under different physics-conditions, quantitative physics becomes impossible since nothing can be compared to a standard. You will not know whether a clock under different physics-conditions keeps slower or faster time unless the unit of time is invariant when the conditions change. Clocks do not create time as Einstein wanted to believe, but only measure time which MUST under all physics conditions pass at the rate that is determined by the pre-selected standard unit. Thus to argue that this unit changes when the clock-rate changes is madness. When the physical conditions changes the clock-rate, it is the clock that is wrong NOT the standard unit of time that is changing. Such a clock is not a perfect clock. A perfect clock MUST keep time at the same rate under all physics conditions: Thus time cannot pass slower or faster in different IRF's. Time IS NOT a fourth coordinate!
brodix
not rated yet Sep 12, 2015
ink,

What is being measured with a meter is a static measure of space. Both ends of the rod co-exist.

What is measured a unit of time is a dynamic process. Not only does the initial event cease to exist before the subsequent event occurs, but that too quickly ceases to exist. What is measured is a specific effect of an action, say rotations of the planet, or peaks of the oscillations of a cesium atom. All of this is being produced within the state of the present. If there were no action, there would be nothing to measure. The rod at zero celsius only exists in the present, along with whatever action might be occurring. Past and future actions do not exist, in the way that two ends of the rod co-exist. Time emerges from action.

Just like temperature, pressure, kinetic energy, etc.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 13, 2015
.
ink, What is being measured with a meter is a static measure of space. Both ends of the rod co-exist.
The clock also co-exist at both instants in time with YOU. It does not disappear in between these instants in time. I REALLY cannot understand what you are trying to say. Your argument makes no sense at all!
What is measured a unit of time is a dynamic process
So what? it measures instants in time that co-exist with YOU and YOU can choose the unit in which these instances in time follows one another. The unit is not determined by the clock BUT BY YOU. Therefore, if the clock keeps time at a different rate under different physics-conditions, it is the clock that is not able to keep time correctly since the pre-selected units MUST PER DEFINITION must remain the same under all physics conditions (continued)
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 13, 2015
What is measured is a specific effect of an action, say rotations of the planet, or peaks of the oscillations of a cesium atom. All of this is being produced within the state of the present.
Again: So what? Once you have chosen the oscillations of a cesium atom, UNDER SPECIFIC PHYSICS CONDITIONS, to define the unit of time, this is the unit that MUST apply under all physics conditions even those under which the frequency of the cesium atom changes.
If there were no action, there would be nothing to measure.
So what again? This is obvious but since action is required to measure time one has to select a specific action under pre-defined conditions to define a unit of action which must be the same under all physics conditions even if the action that was chosen changes under the new physics conditions. An invariant unit of time is demanded to calculate the relative speed between IRF's which must be the same within both IRF's when calculated within either IRF.
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 13, 2015
The best clock one can choose is a perfectly harmonic, stationary light wave which sends out wave-fronts at a constant frequency. If you and the source are co-stationary you will always measure the same frequency no matter within which IRF you and your clock are co-stationary. another observer moving past with speed v will measure another frequency owing to the Doppler shift. Einstein confused the Doppler shift with a change in time units.
Noumenon
not rated yet Sep 15, 2015
No he didn't.

The clock also co-exist at both instants in time with YOU. It does not disappear in between these instants in time.

You're not allowed to reference "instants in time" unless you define them, operationally, using a clock of some type.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.