So we have problems with clocks measureing time ?

[4newton]

I am not sure that I understand the difference that you are trying to create. You say that clocks can act as indicators of time, but not as measurers of time. What is the difference?

By the way, do you have any units by which you are able to measure time, such as years for example? I am just wondering if you have any way to measure time for yourself.?

Time is absolute. Time is our motion with respect to the time dimension. The time dimension is no different than any other dimension. The only difference from the spatial dimensions is that we are moving through the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light. Because velocity is the movement in a dimension with respect to time you can not use velocity as a measure of movement or transition in the time dimension. I have tried to eliminate confusion by going to a general term of transition. I use locity as the definition of transition. Transition in the time dimension is then tlocity. You may also use the term for other dimensions xlocity, ylocity, or zlocity.

The idea of an absolute clock is not very useful, in my opinion, both because there is no such thing, and if there were it would not be possible to use such a clock to measure anything useful.

I agree things that don’t exist are not useful. If one did exist than you would be able to use it to navigate in space at high velocity and know where you are without stopping to take a reading of the stars. You would also be able to have total secure communication with an algorithm that decoded based on absolute time segments. Even navigation of today would be a lot simpler. There are many more uses and any that use time today would benefit. I know it would be of great use to me because I will make money on it.

Again, it seems to me that your complaint against clocks has to do with their accuracy, not with their fundamental function or usefulness. Am I misunderstanding you?

Accuracy is not the main reason although an absolute clock would be more accurate. The main reason is that all clock would agree in all reference frames.

 

[4newton]

Assuming an 'absolute clock' even existed, how would you prove it?

You prove that you have an absolute clock by taking one on the twin paradox spaceship when you return back to the other twin the two clocks would still agree.

 

[4newton]

If you think that it is indeed possible, please provide some type of details of such a clock

I do not wish to tell you about the design of my absolute clock at this time but I can assure you that there is a method to make a clock that uses physical laws that do not change with the change of reference frame or that you can identify and compensate for changes that are due to change of reference frame. If you can ever come to realize that time is not a mystery and is real then anyone may discover how to make an absolute clock.
Don’t try to over complicate a simple function. It is interesting that people deny anything that they can’t see, or feel. You see it all the time when pilots start trusting there senses and not their instruments.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

4Newton, just want to tell you that time IS NOT absolute.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

$$t=t'/\sqrt{1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$

This is the time dilation equation. It shows that time is not absolute...which has been proven by Einstein.

 

[4newton]

This is the time dilation equation. It shows that time is not absolute...which has been proven by Einstein.

Your equation does not explain or state the nature of time.
The equation tells you what a normal clock will read in a relativistic environment. This is a transform function and is used to convert measurements of different reference frames.

 

[brodix]

Prometheus,

Time measures the particular point of reference moving against its context.

Temperature measures a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Economic statistics are a form of temperature reading.

At absolute zero, there is no motion, presumably just empty space, therefore there is no cause and effect, no past and future.

 

[Prometheus]

Time measures the particular point of reference moving against its context.

Is that all time is?

At absolute zero, there is no motion, presumably just empty space, therefore there is no cause and effect, no past and future.

Is absolute zero more than just a theoretical concept? Has absolute zero ever been achieved? Is it possible to achieve?

The attributes of absolute zero that you enumerate seem, to me, to indicate perpetual absolute zero, rather than temporary. Is this a correct assumption?

 

[brodix]

Prometheus,

Is that all time is?

Yes, that's why you can change the context, such as with the twins paradox and the measure of time changes.

Is absolute zero more than just a theoretical concept?

That depends on the meaning of theoretical. It is not that it is simply a product of someones imagination, but it is like having space without time. Or one side of a coin, but not the other. In other words, it would lack the physical dimensionality to exist, but is a fundamental basis of logic.

Has absolute zero ever been achieved? Is it possible to achieve?

No. I'm not sure this is the scientific way of putting it, but for one thing, any attempt to measure it would introduce motion and therefore temperature. It is like Schrodinger's cat. You can't open the box. So, actually there is no way to know.

The attributes of absolute zero that you enumerate seem, to me, to indicate perpetual absolute zero, rather than temporary. Is this a correct assumption?

It really does amount to space without time, so just as zero functions as the center point of real numbers, but does not actually represent one, it is the centerpoint of time. The present without reference to any concept of past and future. So, yes, the present is perpetual.

One of the points I like to make is that geometry doesn't incorporate zero, so it starts with the point as one. The problem this creates is the tendency to think of space as only a function of measuring the objects in it, but we have found that math doesn't make much sense without a zero. For geometry, zero would be empty space. This means space, not the subjective occupation of it, is the more fundamental aspect of reality.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

Your equation does not explain or state the nature of time.
The equation tells you what a normal clock will read in a relativistic environment. This is a transform function and is used to convert measurements of different reference frames.

Exactly! Then why did u say that time is absolute?? You just said it isn't by saying clocks measure differently depending on the reference frame. I didnt mean that equation to explain the nature of time, i was only showing that time is not absolute.

 

[4newton]

Then why did u say that time is absolute??

I think you missed my earlier post.
Clocks have nothing to do with time. Time is our movement or transition in the time dimension. Clocks are a second order means of measurement they only simulate time. All of the theory of relativity is a theory of clocks not of time it self. The theory of relativity states how clocks change with reference frame not time.

 

[terrabyte]

yep

time is absolute. clocks are relative
distance is absolute. meters are relative

 

[brodix]

terrabyte,

How would you describe time?

 

[Muddler]

Everything changes all of the time (note the requirement of time).

You just state something here. Can you prove it? I am just wondering, if we can find intervals of time that are so small, that no change can be observed.

I am not sure of the value of this question. When you speak of change, I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are referring to change in space. Using time as a measure of change in space is a very Newtonian concept. Time now has far more value than this, to me and to many others. Rather than using time as a measure of motion through space, time can also be used as a measure of interaction in space, as space-time. Here is where the major progress is being made, in my mind.

I spoke of "change" but you might also say "interaction". All I wanted to do was to choose an universally applicable word for dynamic processes, so I do not have to talk about such a specific thing as motion. The main point here was that the concept of time is only useful when dynamics are involved and obviously you agree with me there.

Infinitely small periods of time doesn't really have any meaning to me. What is the applicability of such a concept? Anyway my watch keeps really accurate time. Or, am I misunderstanding what "really" means to you.

If we want to understand the nature of time we might need to find out if there is a "smallest unit" (For a long time we thought of atoms being the smallest unit of matter, now we reached the level of quarks and I think there will be at least two more levels, but that doesn't belong here)
I only tried to form a picture about what we might find (or not find) when trying to explore time's smallest units. If there is such a smallest unit then that would be my idea of "real accuracy".

The universe is not static. Change occurs at the speed of light. If it were possible to stop all light in the universe for an interval, then time would stop and you would have your static interval. I believe that this is not possible. Of course, it is possible to narrow the context, increasing simplicity and reducing accuracy and meaning, by which it is possible to assume, or pretend, that the universe is behaving completely statically.

Of course the universe is not static. That's not what I am saying. I suggest you read the whole post #5 again to better understand my question, because I don't want to quote all of it again here.
I am just thinking about the possibilities and consequences of the nature of time, which means infinity opposed to absoluteness of "smallest units".
But I am afraid I am still not making it clear...
Try me again!

 

[brodix]

Muddler,

The only problem is in trying to understand time without reference to units. The measurement of units would seem to be a function of the spatial definition we are observing.
The entity of time goes beginning to end, but the process of time goes on to the next, shedding the old. Our desire to understand focuses on the entity, shutting down the process. This is space, not time. Time is energy, not information.

 

[terrabyte]

time = the measurement rate at which things in our universe experience change. a comparison of these values(present) compared to values(past)

 

[Prometheus]

I am just wondering, if we can find intervals of time that are so small, that no change can be observed.

I think that the answer to this is yes. For me, it is 5 hours, the amount of time I sleep each night and can observe no changes. When cosmologists talk about the Big Bang, there is a smallest unit of time that they can recognize after the Big Bang. Perhaps this is what you mean.

The main point here was that the concept of time is only useful when dynamics are involved and obviously you agree with me there.

OK

If we want to understand the nature of time we might need to find out if there is a "smallest unit"
I only tried to form a picture about what we might find (or not find) when trying to explore time's smallest units. If there is such a smallest unit then that would be my idea of "real accuracy".

OK. I do not think that there is a smallest unit of time, but only a smallest unit of time that scientists can measure perhaps.

3. If you say, the whole universe is an absolute clock, then it is surely hard to disagree with you. The problem is that there is no use in this "clock": sure, it exactly displays the time since the BigBang,

Re this quote from your post #5, I disagree with you about an absolute clock exactly displaying the time since the Big Bang. Since motion through space and time are symmetrical, and since motion through space has not been identical for all space-time since the Big Bang, motion through time has not been identical. Therefore, the universe is not all at the same time, or age.

 

[russ_watters]

time is absolute. clocks are relative
distance is absolute. meters are relative

Time is absolute.

The last 100 years of physics discovery disagrees.

...but I can assure you that there is a method to make a clock that uses physical laws that do not change with the change of reference frame or that you can identify and compensate for changes that are due to change of reference frame. [emphasis added]

4Newton, just out of curiosity, have you heard of Special Relativity? If so, what does the first postulate say?

...I do not wish to tell you about the design of my absolute clock at this time

'I know the answer, but I'm not telling you?' What is this, elementary school? (hint: this is not elementary school. If you make an assertion, you are required to substantiate it)

 

[Muddler]

Muddler,

The only problem is in trying to understand time without reference to units. The measurement of units would seem to be a function of the spatial definition we are observing.
The entity of time goes beginning to end, but the process of time goes on to the next, shedding the old. Our desire to understand focuses on the entity, shutting down the process. This is space, not time. Time is energy, not information.

When I say "unit" I don't mean "minute", by unit I mean "smallest element" or something comparable. I just wonder, if time is really a phenomenon of absolute continuity, or if there is actually something like "steps" in time. Of course that's hard to imagine, but a movie-film looks continuous to us, though everyone knows it is made of single pictures...

The statement that "Time is energy" is not useful in my eyes. What do you mean by that?

 

[Muddler]

time = the measurement rate at which things in our universe experience change. a comparison of these values(present) compared to values(past)

Great definition! I absolutely agree with you! But just this aspect of change is what brought up my question:

If there is no change to be observed in a certain interval of time, does that mean that no time has passed? If not, then how should we measure that certain period of time?

 

[Muddler]

OK. I do not think that there is a smallest unit of time, but only a smallest unit of time that scientists can measure perhaps.

Yes! That's what I am after. Because if we are not able to measure it, that means we can't find a dynamic process fast enough to compare with (of course there is also the "technical" part of creating a clock that is more likely to limitate timemeasuring. I am just thinking of the theoretical limit)

And if such a reproducable process can not be found, what would that mean?
If lightspeed is the limit of possible change in the universe, doesn't that mean there has to be a limit to time itself?

Let me explain: The way any clock we created so far is working is by taking a specified dynamic process as a reference. Science is advancing and so is our ability to explore smaller and smaller units of the microcosm.
Let's say we arrive at a physical level of observing subatomic particles and measuring time that is so accurate, that we would need the involved particles to experience change faster than lightspeed, if we wanted to be even more accurate.
For that's not possible, what is the consequence??
I am afraid I'm talking nonsense, but maybe somebody sees what I'm trying to get at...

 

[brodix]

Muddler,

When I say "unit" I don't mean "minute", by unit I mean "smallest element" or something comparable. I just wonder, if time is really a phenomenon of absolute continuity, or if there is actually something like "steps" in time. Of course that's hard to imagine, but a movie-film looks continuous to us, though everyone knows it is made of single pictures...

When we think of units of time, we tend to think of them as sequential. The reality is that they overlap, like generations. The primary natural unit of time is the day(from which flow all its subdivisions). As subjective individuals, we measure days sequentially, but the fact is that the circumference of the Earth is populated by individuals who measure overlapping days. From this, two points;

Do you think the sun flashes on and off like a movie projector light, or shines continuously?

The statement that "Time is energy" is not useful in my eyes. What do you mean by that?

As these overlapping days pass, the energy of the sun is warming up one longitude as it is leaving a previous, so while the units of time go from beginning to end, the process of time is going on to new beginnings, leaving old ones behind. This applies to generations of species, as well. The energy is draining away from the old as it is flowing into the new.

The larger point here is that this is how time both appears to flow, while remaining as the present. It is the energy that exists. It is what is present, while the flow of subjective information rises and falls, like a wave passing through the water. As individuals, we are waves/units, so from our relative perspective, it is the water that flows through us, even though from a presumably more objective perspective, it is we who flow through the water. The reality is that there is no such thing as "objective perspective," only degrees of subjectivity.

 

[russ_watters]

When I say "unit" I don't mean "minute", by unit I mean "smallest element" or something comparable. I just wonder, if time is really a phenomenon of absolute continuity, or if there is actually something like "steps" in time. Of course that's hard to imagine, but a movie-film looks continuous to us, though everyone knows it is made of single pictures...

Such as Planck time? Its real and measurable.

I guess you could use increments of Planck time as the basis for a clock scale.

 

[terrabyte]

Originally Posted by terrabyte
time is absolute. clocks are relative
distance is absolute. meters are relative

Originally Posted by 4Newton
Time is absolute.

The last 100 years of physics discovery disagrees

not so. the last 100 years of physics asserts that how we measure time and distance is relative, it says nothing that there can't be an absolute quantity for both those dimensions that we simply haven't found a way to measure them at that level yet.

 

[Prometheus]

Yes! That's what I am after. Because if we are not able to measure it, that means we can't find a dynamic process fast enough to compare with (of course there is also the "technical" part of creating a clock that is more likely to limitate timemeasuring. I am just thinking of the theoretical limit)

Clearly, I still do not understand your point.

And if such a reproducable process can not be found, what would that mean?

I give. What?

If lightspeed is the limit of possible change in the universe, doesn't that mean there has to be a limit to time itself?

What might you mean by limit? Time does not flow infinitely fast or infinitely slow, if that is your limit. The speed of light is constant in space-time. Therefore, the rate of motion through space and the rate of motion through time are symmetrical. The limit of the interaction of space with time is the speed of light. Is this your question?

Let's say we arrive at a physical level of observing subatomic particles and measuring time that is so accurate, that we would need the involved particles to experience change faster than lightspeed, if we wanted to be even more accurate.
For that's not possible, what is the consequence??

I do not understand what you mean by "accurate." To require that particles move faster than the speed of light, which is not possible, as a condition of anything is not meaningful to me. Do you think that it is possible to exceed the speed of light?

I am afraid I'm talking nonsense, but maybe somebody sees what I'm trying to get at...

Sorry, not me.

Incidentally, do you consider that time has significance beyond its ability to be measured as a rate of change?

 

[Prometheus]

The primary natural unit of time is the day(from which flow all its subdivisions).

Interesting. What are your subdivisions of the day? Where do the month and the year fit within your natural units of time?

 

[Prometheus]

The last 100 years of physics discovery disagrees

not so. the last 100 years of physics asserts that how we measure time and distance is relative, it says nothing that there can't be an absolute quantity for both those dimensions that we simply haven't found a way to measure them at that level yet.

What? Time and distance are not both dimensions, as you say. I wonder what you mean by this.

How we measure time and space is relative, precisely because time and space are relative. I have no idea what you mean by the word quantity, but absolute metrics for time and space are not part of modern understanding of space or time.

 

[russ_watters]

not so. the last 100 years of physics asserts that how we measure time and distance is relative, it says nothing that there can't be an absolute quantity for both those dimensions that we simply haven't found a way to measure them at that level yet.

You misunderstand Einstein's theory. According to Einstein's theory, those relative distances and times we measure are real and there is no one preferred frame from which to base absolute measurements.

'The speed of light is constant for all observers...' means that it really is constant for all observers - not just that it appears to be constant for all observers.

 

[terrabyte]

it only is real if you believe that clocks measure time absolutely the same way you would believe meter sticks measure distances absolutely.

if you believed that measurements were relative and arguably fictional implements of the human construct used to define its world, then the easy conclusion is there is some real measurement that all these relative measurments derive from that we simply cannot obtain with our limited scope.

in either case it does not change the way the universe operates, it's just a different take on our existence

 

[brodix]

Prometheus,

Interesting. What are your subdivisions of the day?

Hours, minutes, seconds. Remember that 8:34:21 in Baltimore isn't the same as 8:34:21 in San Francisco.

Where do the month and the year fit within your natural units of time?

They are natural units as well(obviously). I listed the day as the primary one because it is most immediate to life.
Obviously the month and year are functions of revolution, rather then rotation, so we are all on the same unit. You could say that with the day, since we are scattered around the planet, we are the face of the clock and the sun is the hand, but with the month and year, we are at one point on it, so we correspond to the hands of a solar/lunar clock.

No matter how small a unit of time, it is still a unit; start/stop, on/off, beginning/end,etc. When it is over, it is history and those scientists are on to succeeding present moments as they study their instruments.

 

[russ_watters]

it only is real if you believe that clocks measure time absolutely the same way you would believe meter sticks measure distances absolutely.

Take out the word "absolutely" - it confuses the issue. Clocks measure time and meter sticks measure distance. There is no absolute distance or absolute time.

if you believed that measurements were relative and arguably fictional implements of the human construct used to define its world, then the easy conclusion is there is some real measurement that all these relative measurments derive from that we simply cannot obtain with our limited scope.[emphasis added]

Certainly, but reality is what it is and is not related to your beliefs. The universe is under no obligation to conform itself to your beliefs. You must learn to accept that if you ever want to "do" science.

in either case it does not change the way the universe operates, it's just a different take on our existence

Sorry, but your "take" is wrong. It is not how the universe is observed to work.

 

[terrabyte]

Clocks and meter sticks measure RELATIVE time and RELATIVE distance. you disagree with me on this?

 

[russ_watters]

Clocks and meter sticks measure RELATIVE time and RELATIVE distance. you disagree with me on this?

Sort of - clocks measure time and meter sticks measure distance (is there an echo in here?). Since time and distance are relative, clocks then necessarily measure relative time and distance. In other words, clock and meter sticks measure relative time and distance because there is no other kind. The way you say it isn't quite right and it may be part of what leads you to this:

Where you are going wrong is thinking that if there is a relative time/distance, there must also be an absolute time/distance. There isn't.

 

[terrabyte]

don't discount that there isn't. since there is nothing specifically disproving such :D

even if there is, as i have said before, it doesn't change the way the universe functions

 

[Prometheus]

don't discount that there isn't. since there is nothing specifically disproving such :D

Not unless you count the theory of relativity.