What is time?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » What is time? » What is time?

Page: First 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

What is time?

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 05/13/09 - 06:21 AM:	#531
Kwalish Kid wrote: What experiment would you accept to show that time slowed down? Time is not an entity, so time cannot move at any rate to begin with. So no experiment could prove that time slowed down. What man calls and observes to be time existing could slow down, if the rotation and orbit of the earth around the sun slowed down and man adjusted his timekeeping system accordingly.

Thinking Thing
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 331

Posted 05/13/09 - 06:59 AM:	#532
ronjanec wrote: Time is not an entity, so time cannot move at any rate to begin with. So no experiment could prove that time slowed down. What man calls and observes to be time existing could slow down, if the rotation and orbit of the earth around the sun slowed down and man adjusted his timekeeping system accordingly. If this were true, then the laws of nature would be frame-dependent. If I choose a reference frame in which an atomic clock is at rest and measured the energy level separation, I would get a different result to if I made the measurement on a spaceship moving at high but constant speed in a straight line, since the different between the results must be that the atom is altered by motion. This is not the case. Whichever frame I measure the frequency at, I measure the same frequency. It is only when we measure the other observer's clock that there is a discrepancy. So 'the atom slows down' (whatever that's supposed to mean) yields a prediction that is different to observation, whereas 'time slows down' yields a prediction that is always consistent with observation. You needn't believe that time really slows down, but nor can you sell an alternative theory that doesn't work.

ronjanec
Graduate

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 04, 2008
Location: Chicago area

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 239

Posted 05/13/09 - 10:11 AM:	#533
Thinking Thing wrote: ronjanec wrote: Time is not an entity, so time cannot move at any rate to begin with. So no experiment could prove that time slowed down. What man calls and observes to be time existing could slow down, if the rotation and orbit of the earth around the sun slowed down and man adjusted his timekeeping system accordingly. If this were true, then the laws of nature would be frame-dependent. If I choose a reference frame in which an atomic clock is at rest and measured the energy level separation, I would get a different result to if I made the measurement on a spaceship moving at high but constant speed in a straight line, since the different between the results must be that the atom is altered by motion. This is not the case. Whichever frame I measure the frequency at, I measure the same frequency. It is only when we measure the other observer's clock that there is a discrepancy. So 'the atom slows down' (whatever that's supposed to mean) yields a prediction that is different to observation, whereas 'time slows down' yields a prediction that is always consistent with observation. You needn't believe that time really slows down, but nor can you sell an alternative theory that doesn't work. The physical movement of an atomic clock is not time physically moving in the same way that my personal clock at home is not time physically moving. Again, both examples of time's movement are only time moving definitely here not physically. If my clock at home slowed down, I am sure that no one would say that time slowed down, or that time physically slowed down in this situation. This is basically the same analogy. And of course, time "did not slow down anywhere else on earth" during the course of the famous experiment.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 05/13/09 - 10:15 AM:	#534
ronjanec wrote: The physical movement of an atomic clock is not time physically moving in the same way that my personal clock at home is not time physically moving. Look, I understand that you really have no knowledge of physics, but you keep saying that the atomic clock is moving. We get these results regardless of which clock we pick to be moving. That is, if we consider one clock to be at rest, we get the same results that we expect if we assume that it's the other clock that is at rest. It's this symmetry that requires that we admit that there is some important meaning to time when we describe a physical system. If my clock at home slowed down, I am sure that no one would say that time slowed down, or that time physically slowed down in this situation. Except that we have evidence that it is not simply a clock running slow, but every physical process that runs slow.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Thinking Thing
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 22, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 331

Posted 05/13/09 - 11:21 AM:	#535
ronjanec wrote: The physical movement of an atomic clock is not time physically moving in the same way that my personal clock at home is not time physically moving. Again, both examples of time's movement are only time moving definitely here not physically. If my clock at home slowed down, I am sure that no one would say that time slowed down, or that time physically slowed down in this situation. This is basically the same analogy. And of course, time "did not slow down anywhere else on earth" during the course of the famous experiment. But the clock didn't slow down. You could measure the accuracy of the clock by any available means at the location of the clock and find that it kept perfect time. You would then have to postulate that all processes by which we measure the accuracy of the clock have also slowed down. But if we measure the accuracy of those by a second set of means, we would find that they too were accurate, and so on and so forth. The resultant description is that everything has slowed down: including the speed of light, since light clocks may be used to establish that accuracy. And therein lies your problem: another observer will agree that the atomic clock, the methods to test its accuracy and even the movements of the people making those tests have all slowed down, but they will not agree that the light in the light clock slowed down, only that it had further to travel. This disagreement on the one hand and agreement on the other cannot be reconciled by 'the clock slowed down'.

knowitall
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/13/09 - 11:42 AM:	#536
In a special relativity sense, every physical phenomenon can be interpreted as moving through spacetime at the same rate. Where such a phenomenon is perceived to be spatially at rest with respect to an observer it is seen as displacing temporally at the maximum permissible rate of one second per second (i.e., unity). As the phenomenon’s rate of spatial displacement with respect to the observer is perceived to increase, its rate of temporal displacement will be perceived to decrease, thus maintaining its constant rate of spacetime displacement. If the phenomenon is perceived to displace spatially at the speed of light through a vacuum (the fastest rate of spatial displacement permissible in our universe) its rate of temporal displacement is perceived to be zero seconds per second. This means that the speed of light through space is equivalent to unity displacement through time. But from the perspective of a phenomenon that is perceived to be displacing at the speed of light, it is spatially at rest and still displacing temporally at unity while it sees its observer as displacing spatially at the speed of light and not displacing at all through time. This indicates that time does not actually slow down as on object’s rate of spatial displacement is perceived to increase; what happens is that an increasing portion of its maximum permissible rate of temporal displacement is perceived by its observer as manifesting spatially. Edited by knowitall on 05/13/09 - 11:51 AM

Jarnsida

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 19

Posted 05/14/09 - 11:45 AM:	#537
We have to get out of the idea of time existing as a physical entity, as it is not a physical entity in any sense of that term. Using a clock as the example here is bad; I think it would be the comparison of speed to a runner. The runner is running, so he is obviously using speed; however, speed does not exist as a physical entity beyond the movement of the runner; speed has no physical body, but one would not contest the existence of speed. To summarize: Time lacking a physical form does not mean that time itself does not exist. Time, as we defined it, will continue to exist regardless of whether or not someone is there to keep it or define it. The definition has been set down, and while that definition might cease to exist if something happened to humanity, it would still apply in the sense that the planet revolving around the sun and rotating on its axis would still continue on. You might believe that this is unrelated to time, but as I have read on this issue and thought about it, I could not disagree more. Because of this we have our seasons, night and day, and other such things that exist as physical proof of time. As for the idea of the atomic clock slowing down, I will defer to the posts made before mine that are better thought out, more intelligent, and more informed on this matter than I.
Disclaimer: I have a limited knowledge of philosophy. One of the reasons I'm here is to expand my knowledge of the topic.

mrsoul
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 20

Posted 05/16/09 - 11:03 AM: Subject: Time is Rate of Movement :	#538
Time is Rate of Movement. The reason that God is eternal (timeless) is because the universe is infinite. Because God's spirit is moving through an INFINITE universe, he is eternal. Any thoughts?

Quint Essence
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2009
Location: Blackwater, Surrey

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 34

Posted 05/17/09 - 07:48 AM:	#539
So many threads on the subject of time, I have already given this answer on another thread, but I'm new to this forum and would like to get some of my views & beliefs about. Time is only that which you perceive it to be, it is but an expression of the infinite, a manifestation expressing an idea as part of an infinite potential. If you are asking in the sense of time being a holistic or absolute mechanism that governs all of existences' actions, behaviors or detail of life than this is not so, time is totally subject to the reality it in habits and I would suggest that for every possible life form in existence that is currently governed by time there is also infinitesimally as many life forms who are not governed by any meaning of time. As I have stated in a separate thread in regards to time, that time is just a tool, a device, used by the mass population of people on Earth for our ease to navigate through our daily lives. Time cannot be measured to such a precise or even perfect degree that it could ever be credited as an absolute truth or mechanism on which all existence operates under, for example if you take the time 11:11, and you say to me, look this clock/watch says the time is 11:11 going by the fact that the hands are positioned on the corresponding points of reference. But what are these points of reference, these little lines that indicate certain points of time, or measurements? And if we are to believe that these lines provide such a pin point accurate reference, then what would happen if I were to grab a really powerful microscope and zoom into that line or indeed that measurement, such as a mm or cm on a ruler? Well we would then clearly see that the line in question does not have any definite position but in the contrary we could draw many, many more lines within that one original line, and if we can do this, then what real basis does that measurement hold, other than it being a handy but fundamentally totally & infinitely inaccurate. So really time only holds the meaning you give to it, or a particular reality gives to it, whether this is done on a individual level or on a mass scale, as in our case most of us have grown up around the idea of time and it becomes a necessity for most daily life routines, as most of us are brought up into environments which are dependent on time scales. The key I would suggest to recognize is that all things in existence are but a reflection of the source from which it manifested from, so even an idea like time is just an experience, an expression of part of that which it is, which is the absolute consciousness or embodiment of existence, GOD, Brahman, Allah, if you like, the infinite potential.
Realization is to get rid of the delusion that you have not realized. ~ Sri Ramana Maharishi That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman --that thou art. ~ Adi Sankara man's obsessive consciousness of, and insistence on being a separate self is the final and most formidable obstacle to the unitive knowledge of God. To be a self is . . . the original sin, and to die to self . . . is the final virtue." Aldous Huxley

knowitall
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/18/09 - 06:10 AM:	#540
But if we were to accept mrsoul's premise, God's timelessness exists "because" of the universe's infinite nature. This implies that God is potentially limited by the universe in that if the universe is finite then God is not timeless. Why would the extent of God's nature be contingent upon a universe it allegedly created?

Page: First 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.