Space and Time

[Justatruthseeker]

It is your belief in this existence of energy apart from the particles that produce it, that led to the Vacuum Catastrophe. Your theory predicted a value that was off by 107 orders of magnitude. Can you even comprehend the absurdity of that error of magnitude?????????

Vacuum catastrophe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This leads back to renormalization and the acceptance of infinities as being actual reality.

Renormalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

" Renormalization was first developed in quantum electrodynamics (QED) to make sense of infinite integrals in perturbation theory. Initially viewed as a suspicious provisional procedure even by some of its originators, renormalization eventually was embraced as an important and self-consistent tool in several fields of physics and mathematics."

It was embraced because the math according to the incorrect theories kept leading to infinities (errors), so the errors were finally accepted and the incorrect and inconsistent theories leading to those errors taken as fact and consistent.

Pseudoscience!

 

[Michael]

All I am saying is time does not equal change, you can have change without time.

Care to demonstrate that claim?

I don't think so actually. How (even theoretically) would that work?

 

[florida2]

You mean we cannot know the speed, angle of approach and energy of two particles because we lack the technology to accurately measure all the variables, not because it can't be known. Does science not claim to know the energy and mass of electrons and protons? Are you claiming they are full of it? I would not argue with you there.

Are you claiming that if we launch a billiard ball at another one on a set course and velocity, the outcome can not be predicted? That might be news to professional pool players, even when the velocity and course has randomness involved because a human is incapable of initiating the same force, angle etc every time.


Because we lack the technology to know all the variables, does not equate with randomness, it equates with lack of knowledge.

I trust you have looked at the Uncertainty Principle?

 

[UnderstandForgive]

Care to demonstrate that claim?

I don't think so actually. How (even theoretically) would that work?

I have not thought of a way to demonstrate how this supposed phenomenon would work. It would require an understanding of what makes motions relatable to one another, whether you are talking about decay of atoms, entropy of heat, the distance light travels. The fact that they can be made to conform with one another is evidence for there being time. That is what is meant by 'time'.

The only way I can demonstrate it is by supposition. You have to take the supposition that things can exist and operate with different laws. So that each of these clocks are unable to be related to one another. There may be fundamental reasons why this is not possible I'm not arguing that. I am saying if you take the supposition, imagine things existing that do not behave in ways you might be familiar with. Suppose the motions of various things do not behave in a way that they can be related to one another, their motions are fundamentally random. If you take that supposition you can come to the conclusion that change does not require there being time. The error most people make I think is that they equate time to change but they are not the same thing. If you have motions that are random to one another, there is no way to gauge time, though things will still change. Imagine that, without the ability to have clocks conform to one another, how would you create a construct of time? It is fundamentally impossible. The evidence that time exists in the first place is that all these motions can be made to conform to one another - the whole study of science and how things behave with respect to clocks is all the evidence there is to suppose time exists. Without that ability, there is no time.

 

[Michael]

I have not thought of a way to demonstrate how this supposed phenomenon would work. It would require an understanding of what makes motions relatable to one another, whether you are talking about decay of atoms, entropy of heat, the distance light travels. The fact that they can be made to conform with one another is evidence for there being time. That is what is meant by 'time'.

The only way I can demonstrate it is by supposition. You have to take the supposition that things can exist and operate with different laws. So that each of these clocks are unable to be related to one another. There may be fundamental reasons why this is not possible I'm not arguing that. I am saying if you take the supposition, imagine things existing that do not behave in ways you might be familiar with. Suppose the motions of various things do not behave in a way that they can be related to one another, their motions are fundamentally random. If you take that supposition you can come to the conclusion that change does not require there being time. The error most people make I think is that they equate time to change but they are not the same thing. If you have motions that are random to one another, there is no way to gauge time, though things will still change. Imagine that, without the ability to have clocks conform to one another, how would you create a construct of time? It is fundamentally impossible. The evidence that time exists in the first place is that all these motions can be made to conform to one another - the whole study of science and how things behave with respect to clocks is all the evidence there is to suppose time exists. Without that ability, there is no time.

In GR theory, time isn't completely separate from the orientation of mass/energy, in fact time changes depending on the indentations and curvatures that are created by the location and orientation of mass/energy. Actual measurements in orbit show that time isn't constant in the way we might think. It's actually variable, and changes based on the concentration of mass/energy.

I think the fact that we *can* find mathematical ways to express the movement of objects shows that *our* reality and sense of time is not random at all. It's "predictable" in ways that allows us to build useful products like GPS systems and such.

*If* we fundamentally could not depend on those equations to describe the movement of objects, it would pretty much be like chaos. There would probably be no such thing as a "physicist" at all.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

In GR theory, time isn't completely separate from the orientation of mass/energy, in fact time changes depending on the indentations and curvatures that are created by the location and orientation of mass/energy. Actual measurements in orbit show that time isn't constant in the way we might think. It's actually variable, and changes based on the concentration of mass/energy.

I think the fact that we *can* find mathematical ways to express the movement of objects shows that *our* reality and sense of time is not random at all. It's "predictable" in ways that allows us to build useful products like GPS systems and such.

*If* we fundamentally could not depend on those equations to describe the movement of objects, it would pretty much be like chaos. There would probably be no such thing as a "physicist" at all.

I wasn't saying that relating one motion to another would be easy, You might have to do a few Lorentz transformations, or compensate for gravitational wells, If you are clever most motions can be made to be understandable in terms of other motions.

I was saying take the supposition that you can extrapolate back to a time before photons, maybe that is the last metric of time that existed from then till now. At that point we have no clocks from then 'till now, there is no way of measuring 'time' in the sense that we are familiar. No way of defining it, it does not mean change wasn't still going on.

I suppose its more of a mathematical argument than anything, change does not require there being time. In other words, for things to have relative motion, it does not always require their motion to be made to be able to be related to each other with mathematics. It would be interesting too if this were wrong. Or you can extrapolate to before it makes sense to relate things in terms of clocks we are familiar with, but change still occurs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I trust you have looked at the Uncertainty Principle?

And one of the variables is simply the way in which you measure particles. For example, If i use a radar gun to measure an objects speed, I must take into account the effect that the radar gun imparts to the particle.

As I said, lack of knowledge of all the variables does not imply randomness, it implies lack of knowledge of all the variables. There would be nothing random in the way the radar beam affected the particle, you must simply know the strength of the beam and its exact direction.

Again you equate not having the technology of understanding all the variables to randomness.

Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The original heuristic argument that such a limit should exist was given by Heisenberg, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg principle. This ascribes the uncertainty in the measurable quantities to the jolt-like disturbance triggered by the act of observation. Though widely repeated in textbooks, this physical argument is now known to be fundamentally misleading.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#cite_note-Rozema-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#cite_note-5 While the act of measurement does lead to uncertainty, the loss of precision is less than that predicted by Heisenberg's argument; the formal mathematical result remains valid, however."

It is misleading, because we do not have the knowledge to account for the jolt of the act of observation. Because in order to measure these particles, we impart energy into the system, energy we lack the technology to accurately account for.

If you could see this with mere visual, your act of observation would add nothing, since the photons already exists and would already be affecting the particles.

Once again you are equating lack of knowledge with a principle of nature.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In GR theory, time isn't completely separate from the orientation of mass/energy, in fact time changes depending on the indentations and curvatures that are created by the location and orientation of mass/energy. Actual measurements in orbit show that time isn't constant in the way we might think. It's actually variable, and changes based on the concentration of mass/energy.

I think the fact that we *can* find mathematical ways to express the movement of objects shows that *our* reality and sense of time is not random at all. It's "predictable" in ways that allows us to build useful products like GPS systems and such.

*If* we fundamentally could not depend on those equations to describe the movement of objects, it would pretty much be like chaos. There would probably be no such thing as a "physicist" at all.

The problem with GR is that they have decided time is a property of space, not a property of the clock itself. The clock changes because more or less energy is put into it which changes its oscillation rate and has nothing to do with space curvature, whatever that may be. It changes because it is closer or further from an energy source, or under acceleration which adds energy.

This should be apparent to anyone. Under 1G of acceleration in empty space with no outside influences, the clock would tick the exact same rate as one on earth, even though velocity through this supposed spacetime is increasing every second.

The reason the local observer notices no difference in clocks when they change, is the observer AND ALL ATOMS that share that frame of reference have also changed. Spacetime does nothing, it is all about energy input and vibrational rates. As energy is added or subtracted, the Bohr Radius changes and the atom oscillates at a different frequency than before.

But through the hocus-pocus of mumbo-jumbo, they have convinced people that it is not a property of the clock, but a property of non-existing spacetime.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That time is another measurement of distance is quite apparent. Take d/t. If the two were not conceptually related, how could you divide them? You cannot divide meters and feet for example without first converting one to the other. Likewise if time and distance were not the exact same things, you would first need to convert one format to the other format before dividing them. A basic principle of division always overlooked.

 

[Ken-1122]

That view point is a bit old, many theorize that yes "empty" space has properties in and of itself, nothing isn't really nothing.

So what are these properties that you speak of? Moloclues? Atoms? What properties exist in outter space?

Ken

 

[UnderstandForgive]

Can you create a clock based on the motion of a single electron?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Care to demonstrate that claim?

I don't think so actually. How (even theoretically) would that work?

Since time is pretty much an extension of movement, and nothing can change without movement of some kind, I would say change would be literally impossible without time, because time, especially how we observe it, is an expression of change.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can you create a clock based on the motion of a single electron?

Electrons? Not really, since they move so fast and it is impossible to ever predict their exact positions. however, there have been clocks made on the movement of individual atoms.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you create a clock based on the motion of a single electron?

Despite common claims of understanding, we still can not even image an individual electron. Of course they use the excuse that it is moving too fast, which is why it appears as a cloud (a multitude of particles), yet claim that in a wire, electrons move mere centimeters per minute in AC currents.

Such a clock would do nothing anyways. It is the electrons motion around the atom responsible for oscillation when it is excited from one level to another energy level. Without an atom in which to orbit, there would be no jumping from level to level, and hence no oscillation.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

Since time is pretty much an extension of movement, and nothing can change without movement of some kind, I would say change would be literally impossible without time, because time, especially how we observe it, is an expression of change.

I would say change would be literally impossible without time, because time, especially how we observe it, is an expression of change.

What do you really mean by time? If you say that time is change, I would have to disagree with you, and say that is incorrect. What we mean by time, is things operate in a mathematically familiar way, you compare the rotation of the earth to a quartz fiber, without this consensus of motion, being able to relate things to one another, there would be no way to create a construct of time. You would not be able to predict where the thing goes,

Is it a function of change that objects, or particles need be related to one another mathematically?

Things can change in ways that are impossible to create a clock out of them, if you can not relate one motion to another, then there is no way of discerning 'time'

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I would say change would be literally impossible without time, because time, especially how we observe it, is an expression of change.

What do you really mean by time? If you say that time is change, I would have to disagree with you, and say that is incorrect. What we mean by time, is things operate in a mathematically familiar way, you compare the rotation of the earth to a quartz fiber, without this consensus of motion, being able to relate things to one another, there would be no way to create a construct of time. You would not be able to predict where the thing goes,

Is it a function of change that objects, or particles need be related to one another mathematically?

Things can change in ways that are impossible to create a clock out of them, if you can not relate one motion to another, then there is no way of discerning 'time'

And since distance is divided by time, then by necessity time must be related to distance and just another way to measure the same thing. It is impossible in mathematics to divide two unrelated things.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

And since distance is divided by time, then by necessity time must be related to distance and just another way to measure the same thing. It is impossible in mathematics to divide two unrelated things.

What I was saying was that you can't understand random motion in a way that would let you make prediction in terms of other clocks. that means it is not operating within time.

you just come up with a new term like 'speed' or 'velocity', and you define that in terms of scalar distance/time vector distance/time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What I was saying was that you can't understand random motion in a way that would let you make prediction in terms of other clocks. that means it is not operating within time.

you just come up with a new term like 'speed' or 'velocity', and you define that in terms of scalar distance/time vector distance/time.

Time, velocity and distance, all different measurements of the exact same thing. Without movement there is no measurement of distance traveled, no velocity over that distance and no time to travel that distance.

Time is nothing but a measurement of movement, whether that is the movement of a point on the earth around its axis of rotation we call a day. The orbital movement of the earth around the sun from point to point we call a year. The swing of a pendulum or the distance a second hand travels on a clock, or the amount of oscillation of a cesium atom. It's all movement, every single one. It is not a property of space, any more than distance or velocity is a property of space.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

It is movement.

If a motion could be fundamentally random and other motions random to each other. What we mean by time is that we can know that the sun will be at its highest when the clock is at its highest between 12:00PM - 1:00 depending upon whether you are in daylight savings time, and where you are in reference to the time zone border. You can know when it will be warmer, you can estimate how much radiation will come off an atom, what I argue is that inter relation is time. Basically when you have motion we relate it in terms of the things we know operate that way, but if we are unable to then it operates outside of 'time'.

All you have to do is suppose that some motions are fundamentally random to each other, and try to imagine that, how would you create a construct of time? Being able to relate motions to one another is what time is. The ability to make predictions for where things will be in terms of other things. That's what makes time real.

What makes time appear the way it does? Why are all these things relatable to one another? Is it something fundamental? When you reach the realm of the very small, does time operate the way it does? can we relate the motions, and know where an object will go? What is the smallest clock we can create?

 

[RiemannZ]

just taking the opportunity to post my favourite spacetime piece
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf

I feel like science fiction hasn't really explored the theoretically stable and mathematically equivalent universe with 3 time dimensions and 1 spatial dimension, where the speed of light is the lower bound of velocity and everything is tachyons