Why is our definition of time incorrect?

[phyti]

Truden;

SR uses time as measurable essence and that gives absolute value to time.

All measurements are relative, i.e. comparison to a standard.

- Do not use “speed” for proving “time”.
Speed is related to motion.
If we have only two moving away from each other objects, speed has no use for time.

speed is rate of change of position
You need two postions, each matched to a different clock event, to determine this.

- Relation between to events is for example “the number of Earth spins in one circle around the sun”.

The sun-earth system is the clock, the time unit is a 24 hr day.

- Every time-measuring tool is “event”

The event is equivalent to the mark on a ruler. The ruler(clock) is the tool, the marks(ticks) are the uniform periodic events.

- All events appear in space except the thought (the thinking).

The thoughts are also events in space, just confined to the mind.

Saying "present moment" you are relying to the mind as observer who treats the point of observation as point of time. You are actually including one event which we call THINKING.
Is your Time related to your thinking?
If YES, then Time is not universal value, but mind value.

The time we are discussing is subjective time, i.e. perception, sensory processing of signals and subsequent awareness of external events. SR demonstrates that this perception of time is altered by motion, just as it alters clock function.
Currently there is no knowledge of a universal/objective time phenomena.
We can imagine one, similar to a processor clock signal, that spreads throughout the universe for the purpose of regulation, i.e. synchronization, state transitions, coordination, etc. Surely we haven't discovered everything!

 

[Chiclayo guy]

Are meters space? or just a way to measure distances? Physical concepts are defined through experiment and measurement devices.

I’m sorry….I don’t understand your response. As I see it meters are not space – space is space. Meters are an arbitrary unit of measurement to determine distance. Neither time nor meters are physical properties. They are tools to measure the physical properties of change and distance.

 

[Doc Al]

From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."

The same place he got his!

Let us know when you get past the first page. You'll find, this provocative quote notwithstanding, that relativity deals with the behavior of mundane material things such as clocks and rulers. Not psychologically subjective time. It certainly doesn't deal with how someone in a coma perceives the passage of time. (The "subjectivity" that Einstein goes on to describe refers to the frame-dependence of quantities once thought to be universal.)

 

[naturale]

I’m sorry….I don’t understand your response. As I see it meters are not space – space is space. Meters are an arbitrary unit of measurement to determine distance. Neither time nor meters are physical properties. They are tools to measure the physical properties of change and distance.

These tools - the standard meter in Paris and the Cesium atom - are the operative definition of space and time in physics. The real difference between the definition of time and space is that, whereas you can move in space and compare a meter measured here with a miter measured there, you cannot move in time and you cannot compare a length of a second measured now and the length of a second measured yesterday. The only way to avoid this problem is to assume periodicity of isolated system as a fundamental principle together with a constant speed of light.
As proved in arXiv:0903.3680 the assumption of periodicity as a fundamental principle yields the remarkable possibility of a coherent and deterministic view of SR and QM.

 

[chiro]

I have the feeling that most people see time to be perceived as some sort of event differential no matter if your talking about differentiating lengths with respect to standard lengths or spacetime events.

But I think that all time happens at the same time for each observer everywhere. Simply put, in every reference frame time evolves from that point on so that no matter what physical condition the system is in for that universe, the evolution function has already ticked over.

In saying this I believe the structure of time to be more like a geometric manifold than a dimension in its own right, where we can measure time in terms of a length characteristic of the traversal through a very complex manifold. More or less I see that universes "split" or fork whenever there is an acceleration component and the frame is not inertial. The distance that an atom travels through the global manifold structure in length equates to the lifetime of the atom and in different universes they have different lifetimes in accordance with the laws of physics for that frame.

Although I can't justify it in terms of a solid theory with experimental evidence (and therefore probably shouldn't promote the idea in the first place), its something that I believe however am willing to change my mind if experimental data comes up to refute it.

The model would support the current formulation of QFT and GR but simply count them as a subset of a higher dimensional analog where the geometry of the global universe is intricately designed so that there is an inner product on the space where the angle between two universes is related entirely to the acceleration component of the frame and also directly to the event differential.

 

[p764rds]

I have the feeling that most people see time to be perceived as some sort of event differential no matter if your talking about differentiating lengths with respect to standard lengths or spacetime events.

But I think that all time happens at the same time for each observer everywhere. Simply put, in every reference frame time evolves from that point on so that no matter what physical condition the system is in for that universe, the evolution function has already ticked over.

I think in some ways like that too. But the 'same time everywhere' is at the quantum level of 'no causality phenomena' (eg entangled state correlations) and not at the spacetime SR and GR level where lorentz wreaks havoc with clocks and space. At last a probable time-compatriot in Chiro. Any more ideas about universal time?

 

[Descartz2000]

I think that time is simply a relationship between two or more objects moving through space. We understand time through the relationships of observed events.

 

[chiro]

I think in some ways like that too. But the 'same time everywhere' is at the quantum level of 'no causality phenomena' (eg entangled state correlations) and not at the spacetime SR and GR level where lorentz wreaks havoc with clocks and space. At last a probable time-compatriot in Chiro. Any more ideas about universal time?

The idea I have about universal time is that you measure universal time by a metric of the global universal manifold.

Basically everything evolves according to whether an object is accelerating. What this means is that for every form of acceleration a new universe appears and deforms the global manifold. Time is not something that happens on an axis but something which is independent for every object.

In terms of universal time it would simply be the metric on the globalized manifold which is always greater than zero (and only equal to zero when we deal with the distance between two events that are the same) What you are measuring is arclength from one point in the global universe to another and that denotes the universal time.

So for example I take an initial universe U. I find that a body accelerates for two seconds. At some quantum interval the universe has forked out into a series of universes in which the geometry is related through an inner product which is related to the event differential and the differential of acceleration. In easier terms, universes that have similar event definitions based on the idea that the frames of reference are nearly identical are closer together in the global structure than universes where events are not as similar and where the frames of reference are more different.

If I take another universe T that is two seconds into the future from U which has forked out from T because it has been accelerating, then I measure the universal time as the metric between T and U.

We would base the metric on relativity but time has to be a real quantity and not imaginary. So the geometry would be formulated in accordance with a metric that adapts to the geometry forking out into multiple universes.

Quantum mechanics would have to be taken into account. The idea is that quantum mechanics using the same principle by branching out into a multiple universe when there is acceleration of a particle. So if a particle is moving in a wave like manner it is constantly accelerating and universes are constantly being created at some quantum length.

I couldn't give you the real metric to use right now but I feel that it would be based on what I have said above plus the evolution functions and relationships in quantum mechanics.

To be perfectly honest though I am still learning about physics and I have a while to go yet, but this is how I've come to view time: not something which is a one axis thing but something in which universal time is considered to be the arclength path from one universe to another.

Sorry for the rant: I didn't intend it to be so long

 

[p764rds]

The idea I have about universal time is that you measure universal time by a metric of the global universal manifold.

Basically everything evolves according to whether an object is accelerating. What this means is that for every form of acceleration a new universe appears and deforms the global manifold. Time is not something that happens on an axis but something which is independent for every object.

In terms of universal time it would simply be the metric on the globalized manifold which is always greater than zero (and only equal to zero when we deal with the distance between two events that are the same) What you are measuring is arclength from one point in the global universe to another and that denotes the universal time.

So for example I take an initial universe U. I find that a body accelerates for two seconds. At some quantum interval the universe has forked out into a series of universes in which the geometry is related through an inner product which is related to the event differential and the differential of acceleration. In easier terms, universes that have similar event definitions based on the idea that the frames of reference are nearly identical are closer together in the global structure than universes where events are not as similar and where the frames of reference are more different.

If I take another universe T that is two seconds into the future from U which has forked out from T because it has been accelerating, then I measure the universal time as the metric between T and U.

We would base the metric on relativity but time has to be a real quantity and not imaginary. So the geometry would be formulated in accordance with a metric that adapts to the geometry forking out into multiple universes.

Quantum mechanics would have to be taken into account. The idea is that quantum mechanics using the same principle by branching out into a multiple universe when there is acceleration of a particle. So if a particle is moving in a wave like manner it is constantly accelerating and universes are constantly being created at some quantum length.

I couldn't give you the real metric to use right now but I feel that it would be based on what I have said above plus the evolution functions and relationships in quantum mechanics.

To be perfectly honest though I am still learning about physics and I have a while to go yet, but this is how I've come to view time: not something which is a one axis thing but something in which universal time is considered to be the arclength path from one universe to another.

Sorry for the rant: I didn't intend it to be so long

Oh mutiverses! No I don't personally agree with that, so I withdraw my previous statement that 'I think like you'. See my threads if you want to know my view on it.

 

[Truden]

All measurements are relative, i.e. comparison to a standard.

Yes, but the measurements are not building the essence, they are extracted from it.
I may measure time with the rotation of the moon, and it is not the rotation which builds the time, for me. It only expresses it in measurable units.
The line of events stays intact no matter how it is measured.

speed is rate of change of position
You need two postions, each matched to a different clock event, to determine this.

I know and this is the point. If you don't have two events (rotation of the clock arrow is event) you cannot "build" time. No time in that case

The event is equivalent to the mark on a ruler. The ruler(clock) is the tool, the marks(ticks) are the uniform periodic events.

False.
Mark on a ruler is equivalent of an object.
The relation between two objects in motion is an event.

The thoughts are also events in space, just confined to the mind.

Lets not go into this. It is subject of philosophy.
I actually don't mind to "put" the thought in space. It doesn't change my interpretation.

The time we are discussing is subjective time, i.e. perception, sensory processing of signals and subsequent awareness of external events. SR demonstrates that this perception of time is altered by motion, just as it alters clock function.
Currently there is no knowledge of a universal/objective time phenomena.
We can imagine one, similar to a processor clock signal, that spreads throughout the universe for the purpose of regulation, i.e. synchronization, state transitions, coordination, etc. Surely we haven't discovered everything!

I absolutely agree that time is subjective as a personal perception, but I don't agree that we can CALCULATE that perception and define differently running time, based on calculated speed.

Since we are in the same line of events, "time" is defined by the relation between the events in a line which is the same for all of us.
No matter of the reference frame, the relations stay the same.

Lets say that from two reference frames we observe sun and a planet.
From one of the frames the distance between them is greater.
Emitted photon from the sun reaches the planet for two rotations.
That would be the same for both of us, because it is set as an event in the line of events.
We both will observe how the photon reaches the planet for two of the planet's rotations.
But then the speed of light will be different for the two frames...
The "time" will be the same - two rotations.
You may say that it took too long and I'll say "not really", but that personal perception doesn't matter. It happens all the time

 

[Truden]

But if you want you can use as reference periods the Earth or moon cycles or the oscillation of a pendulum, as long as you suppose them periodic.

We express an essence (Time) in measurable units, which are part of the essence.
The distance between two objects does not change if we use inches instead of centimeters.
The same is for Time.

 

[Truden]

Here's the thing: gravity DOES change time, right along with relative motion.

I'm not sure why you think that's so hilarious.

Can I assume that you are aware of the existence of the Global Positioning System? GPS has to be precisely calibrated to compensate for the relativistic effects experienced between the satellites in orbit and the receivers on the ground. If it were not for our understanding of the predictable and verifiable effects of relativity, which include gravitational time dilation, GPS would simply not work. The clocks on the satellites run at a different rate than the clocks "down here".

It is a fact; not fiction in the slightest.

Gravitation has effect on the clock, not on the time, my friend.
Just because the clock runs slow or fast does not mean that the time is changing

 

[Whoeveryouare]

Perhaps time and space are best described as unreal, as they are in mysticism, and the psychophysal world likewise. These phenomena would be information, differences that make a difference, as per David Chalmer's (and Bohm's?) theory of information. This is the view of Nagaruna, Bradley, Kant and Hegel and many other philosophers, and it appears to be irrefutable. Rather, it is the idea that time and space are real that can be refuted, as Truden appears to conclude, and as Nagarjuna logically proves in his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.'

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Gravitation has effect on the clock, not on the time, my friend.
Just because the clock runs slow or fast does not mean that the time is changing

If you accept that time is the product of measuring relative events then the difference between the "ticking" of a clock in a weak gravitational field vs a strong gravitational field is obviously significant. Einstein supports you more than you may think.

 

[Truden]

If you accept that time is the product of measuring relative events then the difference between the "ticking" of a clock in a weak gravitational field vs a strong gravitational field is obviously significant. Einstein supports you more than you may think.

Oh, my God...!

We measure the time with the orbit (and the rotation) of Earth around the sun.
The clock divides the Earth rotation event in units and is related to one rotation of the Earth around its axes.
It doesn't affect the orbit around the son and the number of rotations for one circle.

Two different clock measurements will tell us that we have difference in the rotation of the Earth around its axes in relation to one circle around the sun, and that would suck
(Imagine that one of the clocks shows one less rotation(!) )

On the Earth pols we have one day and one night for one circle around the sun.
It doesn't matter how many nights and days (and hours for that matter) you had in your life. The length of your life was still the same as relation to the orbit of the Earth around the sun.

As I said before, it doesn't matter whether we use inch or centimeter for measuring one distance. The distance is the same, even if the measuring tool is not precise.

Einstein is VERY far from my interpretation.
My interpretation does not change the points in the line of events.
An event happens in the same point, regardless the reference frame.
The line of events is OBJECTIVE in my interpretation and doesn't depend on anything.
The way we relate the events in that line is subjective (mind interpretation).

Einstein shouldn't build his theory without including the mind (the consciousness) as a main structural pillar of the Universe.
Only in that case we could talk about relativity.

 

[ZapperZ]

Locked pending moderation.

Please note that the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" applies even in this forum. Thus, bastardization of physics principles based on ignorance is still not allowed.

Zz.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I'm leaving this closed. Time perception is a very interesting area of study in psychology, but it is not related to relativistic effects.