Jump to content

TimeMaster 1a

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit? John Baez is a member of the mathematics faculty at the University of California at Riverside and one of the moderators of the on-line sci.physics.research newsgroup. He responds: "The brief answer to this question is, 'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit. On the other hand, there is no evidence against it, except that we have not yet found it. There are no well-worked-out physics theories incorporating a fundamental unit of time, and there are substantial obstacles to doing so in a way that is compatible with the principles of General Relativity. Recent work on a theory of quantum gravity in which gravity is represented using loops in space suggests that there might be a way to do something roughly along these lines--not involving a minimum unit of time but rather a minimum amount of area for any two-dimensional surface, a minimum volume for any three-dimensional region in space and perhaps also a minimum 'hypervolume' for any four-dimensional region of space-time." William G. Unruh is a professor in the department of physics and astronomy at the University of British Columbia. He offers this reply: "There is certainly no experimental evidence that time--or space for that matter--is quantized, so the question becomes one of whether there exists a theory in which time is quantized. Although researchers have considered some theories in which there is a strict quantization of time (meaning that all times are an integer multiple of some smallest unit), none that I know of has ever been seriously regarded as a viable theory of reality--at least, not by more people that the original proponent of the theory. "One could, however, ask the question in a slightly different way. By putting together G (Newton's constant of gravity), h (Planck's constant) and c (the velocity of light), one can derive a minimum meaningful amount of time, about 10-44 second. At this temporal scale, one would expect quantum effects to dominate gravity and hence, because Einstein's theory links gravity and time, to dominate the ordinary notion of time. In other words, for time intervals smaller than this one, the whole notion of 'time' would be expected to lose its meaning. "The biggest obstacle to answering the question definitively is that there exists no really believable theory to describe this regime where quantum mechanics and gravity come together. Over the past 10 years, a branch of theoretical physics called string theory has held forth the greatest hope, but it is as yet far from a state where one could use it to describe the nature of time in such a brief interval." Another, somewhat iconoclastic perspective on this question comes from William G. Tifft, a professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona: "There are several ways to answer this question. 1) There is no conclusive evidence that time is quantized, but 2) certain theoretical studies suggest that in order to unify general relativity (gravitation) with the theories of quantum physics that describe fundamental particles and forces, it may be necessary to quantize space and perhaps time as well. Time is always a 1-dimensional quantity in this case. 3) My own work, which combines new theoretical ideas with observations of the properties of galaxies, fundamental particles and forces, does suggest that in a certain sense time may indeed be quantized. To see this we need some background information; in this scenario, time is no longer 1-dimensional! "My colleagues and I have observed that the 'redshifts' of galaxies seems to be quantized. The redshift is the apparent shift in the frequency of light from distant galaxies. This shift is toward the red end of the spectrum and its magnitude increases with distance. If redshifts were due to a simple stretching of light caused by the expansion of the universe, as is generally assumed, then they should take on a smooth distribution of values. In fact, I find that redshifts appear to take on discrete values, something that is not possible if they are simply due to the cosmic expansion. This finding suggests that there is something very fundamental about space and time which we have not yet discovered. "The redshifted light we observe is consists of photons, discrete 'particles' of light energy. The energy of a photon is the product of a physical constant (Planck's constant) times the frequency of the light. Frequency is defined as the reciprocal of time, so if only certain redshifts are possible, then only certain energies are present, and hence only certain frequencies (or, equivalently, time intervals) are allowed. To the extent that redshifts of galaxies relate to the structure of time, then, it suggests an underlying quantization. "In our newest theoretical models we have learned to predict the energies involved. We find that the times involved are always certain special multiples of the 'Planck time,' the shortest time interval consistent with modern physical theories. The model we are working with not only predicts redshifts but also permits a calculation of the mass energies of the basic fundamental particles and of the properties of the fundamental forces. The model implies that time, like space seems to be three dimensional. We now think that three-dimensional time may be the fundamental matrix of the universe. In this view, fundamental particles and objects--up to the scale of whole galaxies--can be represented as discrete quantized structures of 3-d time embedded within a general matrix of 3-D time. The structures seem to be spraying radially outward from an origin point (time = 0): a big-bang in 3-D time. Any given chunk, say our galaxy, is flowing outward in 3-D time along its own 1-dimensional track, a 1-D timeline. Inside our (quantized) chunk we sense only ordinary 3-D space, and the single 1-dimension time flow of our chunk of 3-D time. "Now we can finally attempt to answer the original question, whether time is quantized. The flow of time that you sense corresponds to the flow of our chunk of 3-D time through the general matrix of 3-D time. This time is probably not quantized. Both ordinary space and ordinary 'operational' time can be continuous. On the other hand, the structure of the time intervals (frequencies and energies) that make up the 3-D chunks of time which we call galaxies (or fundamental particles) does appear to be quantized in units connected to the Planck scale. In the 3-D time model, space is a local entity. Galaxies are separated in 3-D time, which we have misinterpreted as separation in space. "What matters in 3-D time is the time intervals needed to send signals between galaxies; separation of galaxies in time, not space, is fundamental. The general matrix of 3-D time appears to contain discrete 'particles' of 3-D 'time.' These particles are the galaxies. When photons travel between galaxies, the result is a quantized structure that we see as quantized redshifts. When photons travel within a single 3-D temporal structure, we see only ordinary 3-D spatial dynamics and continuous flowing time. Believe it or not, it seems that we can have it both ways--the underlying structure of time can be 3-D and quantized, but structures in time can flow continuously."
  2. ST-IC (Guest): I have a few questions if you don't mind. Atoms may be bonded by ionic bonding or covalent bonding. Which of these do you plan to manipulation? Why do you think doing so has any thing to do with time?
  3. RE: HELP! Why can't you go past the speed of Light? The limiting factor in traveling at the speed of light is not relativity as some people would have you belive. The limiting factor is the inability of current rocket technology to produce the needed exhaust velocity. Once a rocket reaches the exhaust velocity of the gases the rocket engien can no longer exert the force needed to increase the velocity of the total system. What is needed is a system that exert a force on the rocket without regard for the velocity of the rocket. If this force is applied for a sufficient amount of time the rocket will achieve light speed. We can determine the time needed to reach light speed for any force with the equation ( Ft = MVf - MVi ). F = force applied (in newtons) t = time force must be applied (in second) M = mass of total system (in kilogram) Vf = final velocity (in meter/second) Vi = initial velocity (in meter/second) By solving the equation for t = ((MVf - MVi)/F)) the time needed to achieve light speed for any force applied can be found. Example: The mass of an automobile is 1800 kg. Its Vf is 15.0 m/sec. Its Vi is 0 m/sec. F is 1350 nt How long must the force of 1350 nt act on the automobile to give it the velocity of Vf. SOLUTION: using t = ((MVf - MVi)/F)) t = ((1800 kg X 15.0 m/sec) - (1800 kg X 0 m/sec))/1350 nt t = 20.0 seconds Note: mass = weight/accelaration due to gravitational attraction. mass is (in kilogram). weight is (in newtons). g is (in meter/second) 9.80 m/sec
  4. Chris Ames : You find this interesting. Bose-Einstein condensate, a gas of atoms that has been so chilled that their motion is virtually halted and as a consequence they lose their separate identities and merge into a single entity. The condensate was predicted by Albert Einstein in 1924 based on the system of quantum statistics formulated by the Indian mathematician Satyendra Nath Bose. Quantum theory asserts that atoms and other elementary particles can be thought of as waves. Einstein proposed that as atoms approach absolute zero (−273.15°C), the waves expand in inverse proportion to their momentum until they fall into the same quantum state and finally overlap, essentially behaving like a single atom. The phenomenon could not be observed, however, until techniques were developed to reduce temperatures to within 20 billionths of a degree above absolute zero. In 1995 Eric A. Cornell and Carl E. Wieman led a team that isolated a rubidium Bose-Einstein condensate under laboratory conditions. It is believed that this state of matter could never have existed naturally anywhere in the universe, since the low temperatures required for its existence cannot be found, even in outer space. The condensate may be useful in the study of superconductivity (the ability of some materials to conduct electrical current without any resistance) and superfluidity (the ability of some materials to flow without resistance) and in refining measurements of time and distance.
  5. RE: HELP! Why can't you go past the speed of Light? Dennis Kim: An interesting ideal. However, I think we should take a closer look at this ideal. First we should remember that if two objects or movimg with the same speed then they are said to be at rest relative to each other. Therefore if light and the universe were moving at the speed of 'c', then light would not be able to move from point A to point B within the universe. However, we know that light does move from point A to point B. We must conclude that the universe does not move at the speed of 'c'.
  6. <font size="1" color="#FF0000">LAST EDITED ON 18-Feb-02 AT 00:21AM (EDT)</font> This is a very good question. I find it interesting that no one has ask this question soon. As best we know, 5000 to 6000 years ago great civilizations in the Middle East and North Africa initiated clock making as opposed to calender making. After the Sumerian culture was lost without passing on its knowledge, the Egyptians were the next to formally divide their day into parts something like our hours. Obelisks (slender, tapering, four-sided monuments) were built as early as 3500 B.C. Their moving shadows formed a kind of sundial, enabling citizens to partition the day into two parts by indicating noon. Another Egyptian shadow clock or sundial, possibly the first portable timepiece, came into use around 1500 B.C. to measure the passage of "hours." The device divided a sunlit day into 10 parts plus two "twilight hours" in the morning and evening. The merkhet, the oldest known astronomical tool, was an Egyptian development of around 600 B.C. A pair of "merkhets" were used to establish a north-south line by lineing them up with the Pole Star. They could then be used to mark off nighttime hours by determinimg when certain other star crossed the meridian. The earliest Egypian calendar was based on the moon's cycles, but later the Egypian realized that the "Dog Star" in Canis Major, which we call Sirius, rose next to the sun every 365 days, about when the annual inundation of the Nile began. Based on this knowledge, they devised a 365-day calender that seens to have begun in 4236 B.C., the earliest recorded year in history. We know little about the details of timekeeping in prehistoric eras, but wherever we turn up records and artifacts, we usually discover that in every culture, some people were preoccupied with measuring and recording the passage of time. Ice-age hunters in Europe over 20,000 years ago scratched lines and gouged holes in sticks and bones, possibly counting the days between phases of the moon. The familiar subdivision of the day into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes, and the minute into 60 seconds is of ancient origins but has come into general use since about 1600 A.D. The system of consecutively numbering the years of the Christen Era was devised by Dionysius Exiguus in about 525; it included the reckoning of dates as either A.D. or B.C. (the year before 1 A.D. was 1 B.C.) The Julian calendar, introduced by Julius Caesar in the 1st century B.C., was then in use, and any year whose number was exactly divisible by four was desingated a leap year. In the Gregorian calendar, introduced in 1582 and now in general use, the canturial years are common years unless their numbers are exactly divisible by 400; thus, 1600 was a leap year, but 1700 was not. In 1869 Charles F. Dowd, principal of a school in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., proposed the use of time zones. time zones were adopted by U.S. and Canadian railroads in 1883. Numerous time scales have been formed, here is a list with a brief description. Universal Time: The mean solar time of the meridian of Greenwich, England. Coordinated Universal Time: The basis of legal, civil time. Rotational Time: Based on the Earth's rotation. Standard Time: Local mean solar time depends upon longitude. Ephemeris Time: Based on the Earth's orbital motion. Dynamical Time: Defined descriptively as the independent variable, T, in the differenial equations of motion of the celestial bodies. Barycentric Dynamical Time: The independent variable in the equations, including terms for relativity, of motion of the celestial bodies. Terrestrial Dynamical Time: An auxiliay scale defined by the equation TDT = TAI + 32.184 s. Radiometric Time: Based on radioactive decay.
  7. CAT (Guest): Why do you think this dematerialzation technology is from the future?
  8. "CAT" What technology is from the future and by what means did this technology come to the present?
  9. "tt2002" If the orbital velocity of the earth was equal to 'c' then it would also be maintaned by all objects on earth. This is because objects resist changes in their state of motion. This property is called INERTIA. As for a hovering chopper, it will also maintain inertial properties without regard to altitude or duration of flight.
  10. The inertial properties of the earth are not a factor in determining the temporal displacement of accelerated photons, nor is it a factor in an accelerad temporal displacement experiment. If we considering a person on a trampoline. The person and the trampoline have the same inertial properties as the earth. As the person jumps he maintains the same inertial properties. If he did not he would not land on the trampoline. We can be convinced of this fact if we consider what would happen if this were not true. There are three inertial velocities relevant to the person on the trampoline. 1)Rotational velocity, 1037 miles\hr 2)Earths orbital velocity, 66638 miles\hr 3)Orbital velocity of the solar system, 671080 miles\hr. If the person makes a jump that last 10 seconds and does not maintain these inertial velocities he will be displaced relative to each by a value that can be determined with formula ( distance = rate x time ). Since no displacement is observed we must conclude that all inertial properties are maintained even when contact with the earth is not. We can generalized this statement to include all froms of energy. It is also clear that all spatial inertial properties will be maintained through out any acceletated temporal displacement. What this means is if time travel is possible then a time machine does not have to be a spaceship.
  11. <font size="1" color="#FF0000">LAST EDITED ON 10-Jan-02 AT 09:27AM (EDT)</font> Hi Mac, first I would like to say that you are on the right track. I find you post to be one of simple logic, and I fell this is the best place to be when searching for the true nature of time. I see no one has taken up the challenge of answering your question. Well this is understandable. You must be carefully when answering other people's questions, because often you must first evaluate your own thoughts on the matter and this could lead you to a new reality that conflicts with what you previously held to be true. For some people this is a good thing and for others well not so good. I found myself in this position not to long ago while discussing cosmological theory with one of my college professors. As I was challenging his long held view of the nature of space he decided to through me a curve by asking me one simple question, which was "what about time". Well this stop me in my tracks. I had no quick response to this question since I had not planed on discussing time that day. This may appear unusual to some people that I would talk about space with out regard for time, however I have never been satisfied with Einstein's work on this matter. So I often thought about space and time in separate terms, although at the time I had not determined what dissatisfied me about a space-time continuum. So their I was with only one choice I had to quickly evaluate my thoughts on this matter and produce an answer and be prepared to validate it. As luck would have it, I had recently reviewed Einstein's relativity and other physics data and quickly applied this to the question at hand. While the professor looked at me waiting for my answer, and what seemed like an eternity my brain finally produced the answer. As I reviewed my answer in my mind, I realized this was a completely new concept of the nature of time. About this time I realized the professor was still waiting for my answer, so in a calm voice I tell him "time does not exist". Even as I am saying these word to the professor I am thinking can this be true, at no time in my life had I such a thought nor had I heard of an ideal that time did not exist. I like so many others just accepted that time exist, but in some unknown form. But the data in my mind could not be denied the true nature of time was that it simply did not exist. As you might guess the professor was not happy with my answer he quickly reminded me that he read all the books and no one would say such a thing. I agreed and asured him that I was just as surprised by the answer as he was, but never the less it was correct. The professor and I never finished our discussion as we ran out of time, but it was just as well for the concept that time did not exist was so new to me as well, I needed time to fully understand the data that I used to discover it. Fortunately I stand on the shoulders of great man who's data I depend on has stood the test of time and I simply have to explain how this data applies to the subject at hand. It would be pointless for me to go into great detail on this matter at this time. The ability to understand and accept my work will depend greatly on ones on level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter at hand. I say this not to diminish anyone, but to point out that an understanding of basic physics is needed. I also find that most people know just enough about time to realize that a time machine would be the most valuable machine ever built. With this much to gain if you shine the light of truth on them they will run from the light into the darkness in search of their fools gold. This can not be avoided.
  12. Using this view of time explain Einstein's "Time dilation".
  13. This is an interesting concept. What led you to this conclusion? How can something that does not exist control the lives of so many people? What about Einstein? How can we measure what does not exist?
  14. "If matter begins to cause the effect of time dilation the faster it gets (ie time surrounding goes by relatively faster) Then how come this does not apply to light and EM in general?" It is important to remember that it is not matter that is causing time dilation, but the speed of travel. If you were riding on a photon, time for you would be unchanged. However, if you obseved clocks at a different location they would appear to be slowing down. "And what about gravity, I wonder? This is something I have *never* read or heard of being discussed or explained - Do the effects of gravity take place instantaneously across a distance, or does the effect of gravity travel at c also?" Albert Einstein ask this same question. He answered this with the general theory of relativity.
  15. Time appears to be more puzzling than space because it seems to flow or pass or else people seem to advance through it. But the passage of or advance seems to be unintelligible. The question of how many seconds per second time flows is obviously an absurd one, for it suggests that the flow comprises a rate of change with respect to something else--to a sort of hypertime. But if this hypertime itself flows, then a hyper-hypertime is required, and so on , ad infinitum. Again if the world is thought of as spread out in space-time , it might be asked whether human consciousness advances up a timelike direction of this world and, if so, how fast; whether future events pop into existence as the 'now' reaches them or are there all along; and how such changes in space-time can be represented, since time is already within the picture. ( Ordinary change can, of course, be represented in a space-time picture: for example, a particle at rest is represented by a straight line and an oscillating particle by a wavy line.) In the face of these difficulties, philosophers tend to divide into two sorts: the 'process philosophers' and the 'philosophers of the manifold.' Process philosophers--such as Alfred North Whitehead, an Anglo-American metaphysician who died in 1947-- hold that the flow of time is an important metaphysical fact. Like the French intuitionist Henri Bergson, they may hold that this flow can be grasped only by nonrational intuition. Bergson even held that the scientific concept of time as a dimension actually misrepresents reality. Philosophers of the manifold hold that the flow of time or human advance through time is an illusion. They argue, for example, that words such as past, future and now , as well as the tenses of verbs, are indexical expressions that refer to the act of their own utterance; then later yet, when one says that it is in the past, he or she asserts that it is earlier then that other utterance. Past and future are not real predicates of events in this view; and change in respect of them is not a genuine change. Again, although process philosophers thinks of the future as somehow open or indeterminate, whereas the past is unchangeable, fixed, determinate, philosophers of the manifold hold that it is as much nonsense to talk of changing the future as it is to talk of changing the past. If a person decides to point left rather than to point right, then pointing left is what the future was. Moreover, this thesis of the determinateness of the future, they argue, must not be confused with determinism, the theory that there are laws whereby later states of the universe may be deduced from earlier states. The philosophy of the manifold is neutral about this issue. Future events may well exist and yet not be connected in a sufficiently lawlike way with earlier ones. One of the features of time that puzzled the Platonist Augustine, in the 5th century AD, was the difficulty of defining it. In contemporary philosophy of language, however (influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, a Cambridge philosopher), no mystery is seen in this task. Learning to handle the word time involves a multiplicity of verbal skills, including the ability to handle such connected words as earlier, later, now, second, and hour. These verbal skills have to be picked up in very complex ways ( party by ostension), and it is not surprising that the meaning of the word time cannot be distilled into a neat verbal definition. ( It is not, for example, an abbreviating word like bachelor.) The philosophy of time bears powerfully on human emotions. Not only do individuals regret the past, they also fear the future, not least because the alleged flow of time seems to be sweeping them toward their deaths, as swimmers are swept toward a waterfall.
  • Create New...