Time From a Physics Standpoint is an Illusion

[Inkfingers]

True, because you cannot have cause and effect without space and matter.

You simply cannot have them without time, as cause has to precede effect (which is a temporal relationship).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am sorry for the double post, but I did not address GrowingSmaller's latest post in the thread.

Most of what your post seems to be is opinion, so I will agree to disagree.



I believe that when it comes to our understanding of God's creation, the universe around us, it is logical that the foundation of said understanding should be based on what can be observed.



I do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to, "a flow of events being annihilated." Although this does reminds me of Stephen King's fiction, The Langoliers. The idea that I am trying to convey destroys nothing; it is just that time never existed in the first place.

I am using the term annihilate to refer to a nihilistic tendency. To take way the meaning form something, to make it nothing, to nullify it. Its a brut fact of experience that there is a temporal flow. After all, it seems we all know what is being discussed when we talk about temporal flow. Don't we?


This latest physical theory, meh to it. It may be valid according to its axioms, but it doesn't annihilate experiential time.

If we know about subjective time experience, then we have true justified beliefs about it, and if there are truths about it, then it seems its a fact. Similarly, we know the sun rises, and that knowledge causes talk of sunrise.

So we know of temporality from a common sense perspective, and that is the cause of this aspect of the focus of the current thread. i.e. the focus on experiential time.

If it didn't exist, there would be no cause of this aspect of the discussion, and no effect in the sense we have something concrete to debate. But we do. QED it exists.

 

[now faith]

You simply cannot have them without time, as cause has to precede effect (which is a temporal relationship).

I agree,the events of cause and effect have no constraints on time.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Light contains particles,that are subject to gravity.
Gravity is the source of energy, not the light.
If you had pure light void of any particulate, it could appear curved due to a reflective mass.

You seem to be replying to this part of post:

Einstein had no variables or statistics to work with but used mathematics to derive a theoretical value for gravitational bending of light that could tested for by measuring the angular displacement of the position of stars near the Sun’s limb.
...
E = mc² doesn’t mean that at all.

However you get some things wrong.

Light is photons which have no mass and are so are not subject to Newtonian gravity. What GR states is that mass and energy and pressure bends spacetime and massless photons will follow that curved path. GR makes predictions for that bending and we measured that bending. The correct sentence would be "Light is photons whose paths are subject to the gravity of masses".

There is no "light is the source of energy" in that post. In the energy mass equivalence equation E = mc², c is the constant speed of light, not light itself. The "source" of the energy is the variable mass m. Note that it is equally valid to consider the "source" of the mass m to be the energy E.

The last sentence is incoherent, now faith, because it has no meaning in physics. "Pure" is redundant because light is always just light. Light without photons ("particulates") is not light. There are no masses reflecting light in the gravitational bending of light ("reflective mass"). Even "appear curved" is doubtful because the paths of light are actually curved by masses. Light goes straight when the Sun is not near its path and is bent when the Sun is nearby.

 

[Radagast]

Time dilation is a measurement.

No, time dilation is a phenomenon which can be detected by a measurement.

No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.

Not true, actually. We can take a lump of radioactive material, and move it rapidly. Time dilation means that the radioactive decay slows down.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, time dilation is a phenomenon which can be detected by a measurement.

This is time dilation which is that "time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers". Thus time dilation is a measurement of a difference in the elapsed time by the observers.
A measurement is of course the detection of a phenomena.

Not true, actually. We can take a lump of radioactive material, and move it rapidly. Time dilation means that the radioactive decay slows down.

You missed out that radioactive decay rates are measured using clocks and as I wrote : No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.

 

[Radagast]

Thus time dilation is a measurement of a difference in the elapsed time by the observers.

No, time dilation is a phenomenon which can be detected by a measurement. The measurement need not be done with a clock.

You missed out that radioactive decay rates are measured using clocks and as I wrote : No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.

Wrong. No clock is needed.

All I need is two lumps of radioactive material: one moving and one not. Then I count the number of Geiger-counter beeps coming from each.

Or I can look at individual radioactive particles, and measure how far they travel, given their speed. Or I can look at the relativistic Doppler effect.

 

[RealityCheck01]

All I need is two lumps of radioactive material: one moving and one not. Then I count the number of Geiger-counter beeps coming from each.

'Then all you have is 2 counts. All you know is that the counts are different. Is it experimental error? Is there an unknown law of physics changing the counts? Was there an invisible block of lead blocking the radiation during one run ? Was there an alien portal syphoning off radioactivity during one run ?
The match with the predictions of time dilation is what tells us that the counts are measurements of time dilation. For that we need to measure the flux, i.e. count/time.

What you are describing is close to the Muon Experiment (replace the lumps with muons).

The measurement of the flux of muons at the Earth's surface produced an early dilemma because many more are detected than would be expected, based on their short half-life of 1.56 microseconds. This is a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.

 

[Sammy-San]

I do not wish to debate, but only want to discuss with anyone who may know more than me on the existence of time from a physics perspective. To my understanding time as a force of nature does not exist. Matter moves, this movement causes change, and we humans perceive this change as the passage of time. Change requires nothing other than movement; there is no need for time. The phenomenon known as time dilation to my understanding is just the slowing of change not time. That's how time can be relative because it's not time that is being slowed by gravity or acceleration, but change. Does anyone have any insight on this matter?

Revelation mentions time-its not an illusion.

 

[Radagast]

What you are describing is close to the Muon Experiment (replace the lumps with muons).

Well-spotted. Yes, I was (in my second-last sentence). And no clocks are needed for that, just counts at different distances.

The thing about radioactivity is that the passage of time reveals itself as counts. This is also how carbon-dating works.

 

[now faith]

You seem to be replying to this part of post:

However you get some things wrong.

Light is photons which have no mass and are so are not subject to Newtonian gravity. What GR states is that mass and energy and pressure bends spacetime and massless photons will follow that curved path. GR makes predictions for that bending and we measured that bending. The correct sentence would be "Light is photons whose paths are subject to the gravity of masses".

There is no "light is the source of energy" in that post. In the energy mass equivalence equation E = mc², c is the constant speed of light, not light itself. The "source" of the energy is the variable mass m. Note that it is equally valid to consider the "source" of the mass m to be the energy E.

The last sentence is incoherent, now faith, because it has no meaning in physics. "Pure" is redundant because light is always just light. Light without photons ("particulates") is not light. There are no masses reflecting light in the gravitational bending of light ("reflective mass"). Even "appear curved" is doubtful because the paths of light are actually curved by masses. Light goes straight when the Sun is not near its path and is bent when the Sun
Unquote:
My point was that relativity is based on the effect of gravity on mass and energy.
My mistake was trying to explain gravitational lensing.

 

[now faith]

I find this post enlightening because it puts in perspective why your initial post was incoherent and gibberish and the need to now employ an exit strategy when all I requested was to make your post clearer so a response could be formulated.

The initial post was nonsense to start with as there was no science content and was motivated by flaming.
Since my request was impossible to comply with, your exit strategy involves the very ad-hominem fallacy you accuse me of.
If I wanted a psychological profile done I’ll take it up with my sister who is a practising psychologist thank you very much, the comments from an armchair expert with a chip on their shoulder has no clinical value.

Are you her motivation?
I am trying to ignore you but I understand how much that bothers you.

So let's try to be civil and Christian like and not engage each other any more ok?
No reply needed nor will I reply to any more of your statements.

 

[sjastro]

Are you her motivation?
I am trying to ignore you but I understand how much that bothers you.

So let's try to be civil and Christian like and not engage each other any more ok?
No reply needed nor will I reply to any more of your statements.

Your trollish behaviour is as subtle as a sledgehammer.
I won’t be making any further responses based on the principle of not feeding the troll.

 

[sjastro]

In discussions on time dilation the issue on whether time dilation is only an observer dependant measurement or a real physical effect associated with the moving object under observation depends on coordinate time or proper time; and if inertial frames (stationary or moving at a constant velocity) or accelerated frames are being considered.

Coordinate time as the name suggests depends on the coordinates of the frame of reference of the observer and is a calculated parameter.
Proper time is the time kept by a moving clock or a clock attached to a moving object.

In the case of the muon experiment, the muons are travelling at a constant velocity of 0.98c in an inertial frame.
Time dilation occurs for the coordinate time according to the Lorentz transformations.
The proper time is the muon’s half life which doesn’t change even though they are travelling at 0.98c.
In this case time dilation is an observer dependant calculation rather than a physical effect since the muon’s proper time is not dilated.

The situation is different for non inertial or accelerated frames.
The Lorentz transformations no longer apply and in the simplest case for constant or hyperbolic acceleration, Rindler coordinates are used to describe acceleration in space-time.

In this case proper time does undergo time dilation due to acceleration relative to an inertial frame.
If the muons were in a non inertial or accelerated frame, the half life would differ when compared to an inertial frame in which case time dilation is a real physical effect.

Satellite clocks which tick faster than ground clocks due to gravitational time dilation is a real effect and is corrected by GPS.

 

[Radagast]

In discussions on time dilation the issue on whether time dilation is only an observer dependant measurement or a real physical effect

I'm not sure what makes you think that the muons reaching the earth's surface aren't "real," and I take issue with that word "only."

From the frame of reference of the muons, of course, the oncoming earth is travelling at 0.98c, and this produces a length contraction which makes the earth's atmosphere thin enough to travel through, given the time constraints of half-life.

The muon's frame of reference is no more or less real than the earth's frame of reference. Both descriptions explain what is indeed a real effect: that muons do actually reach the earth's surface.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Mod Hat ON

Ladies and gentlemen, please remember to address the topic, and not the poster. Things got a little flamey in here. A cleanup was done. If your post is gone, it either was a violation, or responded to one.

Mod Hat OFF​

 

[sjastro]

I'm not sure what makes you think that the muons reaching the earth's surface aren't "real," and I take issue with that word "only."

From the frame of reference of the muons, of course, the oncoming earth is travelling at 0.98c, and this produces a length contraction which makes the earth's atmosphere thin enough to travel through, given the time constraints of half-life.

The muon's frame of reference is no more or less real than the earth's frame of reference. Both descriptions explain what is indeed a real effect: that muons do actually reach the earth's surface.

You have misunderstood my post as it is based around your misconception that time dilation is the result of radioactive decay slowing down.

Not true, actually. We can take a lump of radioactive material, and move it rapidly. Time dilation means that the radioactive decay slows down.

If this was true then half life is not an invariant under the Lorentz transformations but depends on the velocity of the observer.
If there are n observers each at a different velocity then there are n different half lives calculated which raises the question which is the "real" value.

This is not an issue as the half lives for meson and radioactive decay are examples of proper time which is invariant for inertial frames.
Your post is an example why this is the case; the higher number of mesons reaching Earth is due to length contraction in its frame of reference which is calculated as a time dilation in the Earth’s frame and not due to decay slowing down.

As explained in my previous post the situation is different when comparing inertial to non inertial frames.

 

[Radagast]

Your post is an example why this is the case; the higher number of mesons reaching Earth is due to length contraction in its frame of reference

And I'm saying that's equivalent to the explanation (from the Earth's frame of reference) that time slows down for the muons.

But I don't care to continue the conversation; you've been rather aggressive throughout the thread.

 

[sjastro]

And I'm saying that's equivalent to the explanation (from the Earth's frame of reference) that time slows down for the muons.

But I don't care to continue the conversation; you've been rather aggressive throughout the thread.

It is not equivalent to the explanation for the reasons I have given.

To then terminate the conversation with a cheap parting shot which is clearly designed to be inflammatory has been duly noted.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Well-spotted. Yes, I was (in my second-last sentence). And no clocks are needed for that, just counts at different distances.

You are still wrong. People do not count the clicks of the radiation detector for a millisecond at the top of the mountain and count for a day at the bottom of the mountain or vice versa ! For the counts to be comparable they have to be counted for the same period of time and that needs a clock.

The Muon Experiment has an example in its cartoon. Measure the muon flux (count per time) at a height of 10 km to get 1,000,000 muons (no time period specified). Measure the muon flux (count per time) at a height of 0 km to get 0.3 muons (no time period specified).

Radagast: How do you think that 0.3 muons would be counted in that example?

Some History of the Muon Experiment

The historical experiment upon which the model muon experiment is based was performed by Rossi and Hall in 1941. They measured the flux of muons at a location on Mt Washington in New Hampshire at about 2000 m altitude and also at the base of the mountain. They found the ratio of the muon flux was 1.4, whereas the ratio should have been about 22 even if the muons were traveling at the speed of light, using the muon half-life of 1.56 microseconds. When the time dilation relationship was applied, the result could be explained if the muons were traveling at 0.994 c.

Why did Rossi and Hall measure fluxes rather than counts over different/random/whatever you think lengths of time?

Note that actual numbers in the muon experiments are hundreds of muons per hour, e.g. Frisch and Smith (1963) measured 563 muons per hour at height and 412 muons per hour at ground.