[davidgow77]

The question essentially is asking that if a given system started in one state then went through a series of changes and eventually came back to its original state, then how would it be possible to measure time??? To elaborate, if the universe were to eventually revert to conditions before the big bang /inflation start, then it would be impossible to differentiate between the start of one "time" and the start of another "time". Whatever your definition of time is, it is intrinsically linked to the measurement of change, so if your system changes so much that it returns to its original unchanged state, then the notion of time is irrelevant. one time would be identical to another, with all the time inbetween simply an indicator of stages of change.

Any clearer?



DG

[Guille]

yes, thank you dave, quite clearer.

It is very, very similar to what Antonio and I were discussing in a pair of other forums about lightcones and the time axis. In the 45 degrees to the time exis, the lightcone point, there is no difference between past, present and future, which is similar to what you sya of invaraince in the measurement of change.

[davidgow77]

I think you're right, but I think you have a better grasp of the concept from a physics point of view. I think it highlights that time is relative and reinforces Einstein's arguements regarding relativistic philosophy, but the problems of thought associated with time seem such great obstacles to overcome that I am sure that time must be something very simple like being the relationship (or relativity) of fundamental constituents of matter (quarks and leptons) to space. I think chrono-dynamics (study of the movement of time) is something that quantum physics should and will develop more thoroughly over the coming years, and I think it will be closely linked to asymptotic freedom and the motion of quarks within atoms.


DG

[Guille]

I think chrono-dinamical developments will impñulse the understanding of the speeds of the boson particles. The understanding of the motion of time will also help to the understanding of the motion of energy. I think the most important discoverment will be if time is wave, particles, something else...

Also I think that, it's true that physics wil help to the understanding of time, but still it will be a philosophical theme, and it will be philosophy that will give the whys.

[mkirkpatrick]

Of all the many illusions,that I have encountered,time,is the most persistent.
I remember an article I came across many years ago,its main title said,the
time is now,all else is an illusion.this caused me to ponder on this statement,

After many years of pondering,it seems,that,truly.time,has no existance
outside of our minds,there seems to be just an eternal now.
No matter how much I try and wish myself away from it,I am always
stuck in the now,and always will be.

suppose you could look through a powerful telescopefrom a planet
say 100 million light years from earth,would not that now,be looking
at Tyranus-rex,or some other giant reptile.Time seems to be just a
sequenced order of events,in our evlutionary cycle of becoming.

[jim barlow]

One may think of time as a color for this argument in which case "dimension" is not the operative word.
Dimension itself doesn't have dimension. It is dimension. Dimension is a name like Steve. Once you find Steve you'll find that Steve doesn't have anymore Steve-s.
Language can be fruitfully examined sometimes for these paradoxes.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by jim barlow One may think of time as a color for this argument in which case "dimension" is not the operative word. Dimension itself doesn't have dimension. It is dimension. Dimension is a name like Steve. Once you find Steve you'll find that Steve doesn't have anymore Steve-s. Language can be fruitfully examined sometimes for these paradoxes.

Jim;
It may be more fruitful to think of "dimension" as it pertain to physics terminology.

Dimension – Any term that can be defined as a quantitative measurement resulting in imperial data.

If you resolve yourself to maintain this strict interpretation then you will realize that all the multidimensional phenomena are simple measurements of some property, function, or interaction of the fundamental entities of the universe; Just as "Many-worlds" represents systems comprised of many dimensions.
For example: An atom is a world system with three spatial dimensions, one time dimension (due to motion), a dimension of mass, a dimension of charge and so on.

These are trade secrets of the theoretical physicist, so keep them to yourself.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by jim barlow One may think of time as a color for this argument in which case "dimension" is not the operative word. Dimension itself doesn't have dimension. It is dimension. Dimension is a name like Steve. Once you find Steve you'll find that Steve doesn't have anymore Steve-s. Language can be fruitfully examined sometimes for these paradoxes.

You have made a very valid point there,one methinks that is oft forgotten.

regards michael

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Epslion This was originally posted under "The cause of Gravity", but it applies well here. Time is elusive and mysterious. It has eluded the grasp of mankind’s understanding since the beginning of time, and therein lies the problem; we cannot even begin to fathom the depths of time if we are forced to describe it with itself. To overcome this, what seems to appear as an inconceivable problem, took a true genius, Albert Einstein. He allowed us to peer at space and time from a brand new perspective—a perspective unlike anything else before him. In his theories of Special and General Relativity, he describes space and time as dynamic structures which interact with matter constantly; although his theories mainly dealt with space they also partially described time as dynamic and changing. Take for example the Gamma factor, mathematically written as [g=1/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))] where "g" is equal to dilation in time, "v" is equal to the objects speed, and "c" is equal to the speed of light. One of the implications of this equation is that an object’s speed with respect to the speed of light directly affects the speed or "movement" of time—besides this fact it also establishes that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, but it does not describe what time is. What is time? I have pondered this very question for about three years--and I now believe that I have reached a critical stepping-stone. I hypothesize that like light; time may too travel in waves. This, I shall call the “Ripple Theory.” There are a few implicationsof this theory I would like to cover. The first being the "Cosmic speed limit", Relativity sets the limit at "c" (speed of light), but I postulate if one were able to observe the behavior of light from a superior point of view one might find that light itself is regulated by a "speed limit", that limit being the speed of time, imagine if you somehow could see time, you would observe ripples/waves. Like a child casting stones in a pond and thus creating ripples in the water. The question now arises from where do these waves emanate? There is no singular source of these waves; rather the universe itself emits these waves on all fundamental particles—each particle subject to its own time wave. An interesting consequence that will result from this, is that all particles move at the same spatial speed, acceleration occurring when an object uses energy/force to change the frequency of its own time wave thus covering a determined amount of space in more or less time. Light is a rather interesting object to observe because it can be described in two completely different ways. The first is particle-like; more specifically it has momentum. A simple experiment can show this; if you were to shine a beam of light (red light preferably, because of its lower frequency) at a smooth metal surface, you can knock electrons off the plate. The photons collide with the electrons. This would be the end of it if it were not for the second experiment, first performed by Sir Isaac Newton. What he did during his experiment was to shine a light at an opaque sheet with two holes and a second sheet behind it to collect the light. What he anticipated was to observe two distinct light dots appear on the second sheet, but what he got instead, was lines of dark and light areas across the entire sheet. This shows that light is also wave like! Because of the frequency of the two proceeding light waves canceling out certain parts of each other at the same time amplifying other parts to produce a new series of crest and troughs. So what is it, a particle or a wave? This very dilemma lies at the heart of Quantum mechanics. Ripple Theory offers a different look at light’s behavior. Before I address how it affects the two different definitions of light. I will first describe light’s movement in terms of the Ripple Theory. Light does move at the maximum speed possible, but it does not set this limit, instead time sets this limit. The rate at which time vibrates (frequency) is the speed of time, and this is different for all independent particles (I say independent, because once two objects connect, their time waves synchronize). The reason light is able to propagate at the maximum speed limit, is its time wave is spread to an infinitely thin sheet, thus allowing light to cover any distance in relatively no time. The reasoning for this is lights time wave has no crests or troughs so it cannot ever experience one revolution/moment in time. Now to address why light appears to be both particle-like and wave-like. In terms of Ripple Theory light is particle like, it only appears to be a wave because we are moving in a wave of time and light is moving straight through time. It is kind of like looking in a mirror, we observe our time wave through looking at the observed wave of light. The reason common-day objects appear non-wave like is because the observer and the object have relatively close time wave patterns (because they are moving at relatively close speeds) so they do not observe any distinction. A good way to visualize this is to think of two people falling. If both people fall at equal speeds, neither can observe any net speed between them. In essence one person’s speed cancels out the other person’s speed.

that is right,but I would not want to be in free-fall in a lift to prove it!
kind regrds michael.

[jim barlow]

Einstein (it seems to me) starts from a geometric (Euclidian / non Euclidian) point of view treating time as another such dimension. Fine. Useful. Ingenious.
But I think time is a lot more than a geometrical dimension. It is more than space expanded on a vertical axis. (Although it can be that too.)

I think time has a motor aspect to it. It is somehow more "alive" than space is. I am not only thinking of our one way travel on this train: that is some mirroring of individuation time seems to be in love with for some reason.

Time isn't just an ocean either where particles zoom back and forth.

Time is not INERT.

I don't know what time is in totality. Sometimes I feel I am travelling on the backs of a bunch of elephants...