04 Jan 10
5 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't understand your post.
If time is just a measure of entropy, then entropy would exist without time? Mmm... Something doesn't add up. I've heard that entropy implies a direction of time, but time cannot simply be a measure.
Entropy could exist without time, but a change in entropy could not.
A clock or watch is a device that creates entropy by turning chemical, mechanical or electrical potential energy into heat by doing work on the display, moving the hands or changing what pattern of light is displayed. As it creates entropy in a more or less unchanging pattern, the hands move at a specific, measurable rate, allowing us to measure the local change in entropy which acts as an estimate of the universal change in entropy.
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think I see what you mean.
I don't understand your post.
Entropy could exist without time, but a change in entropy could not.
A clock or watch is a device that creates entropy by turning chemical, mechanical or electrical potential energy into heat by doing work on the display, moving the hands or changing what pattern of light is displayed. As it creates entropy in a mo ...[text shortened]... asure the local change in entropy which acts as an estimate of the universal change in entropy.
But isn't time dilation a real phenomenon? How is that compatible with time being a measure of the entropy of the whole universe?
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI've spent too much time reading this thread. It just comes down to whether or not you believe in absolute time.
I think I see what you mean.
But isn't time dilation a real phenomenon? How is that compatible with time being a measure of the entropy of the whole universe?
Look, you guys are are just arguing different sides of the question. On one side you have newton, on the other you have Einstein. Now if one of you woud just throw in Hawking we'd be set. (even if he just repackaged and added some philosophy to it)
If none of this makes any sense to you, read the following:
http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02088/whatistime.htm
04 Jan 10
Originally posted by uzlessFAIL
I've spent too much time reading this thread. It just comes down to whether or not you believe in absolute time.
Look, you guys are are just arguing different sides of the question. On one side you have newton, on the other you have Einstein. Now if one of you woud just throw in Hawking we'd be set. (even if he just repackaged and added some philosophy ...[text shortened]... sense to you, read the following:
http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02088/whatistime.htm
ATY already threw in Hawking.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by divegeesterTangent: I think that disagreement between me and ATY is that I see things more mathematically and he sees it more as physics. Movement for me is changing coordinates along the basic 3 dimensions. If I think of time as simply another coordinate (4D or more), then if I keep that coordinate fixed and change one of the first three, I have "movement" with time fixed.
Isn't that speed = distance/time?
Of course, this may be an abuse of language from me being a layman in physics.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaConsider a point 'moving' while keeping t as constant. That means that at a single moment in time it occupies a number of places.
Tangent: I think that disagreement between me and ATY is that I see things more mathematically and he sees it more as physics. Movement for me is changing coordinates along the basic 3 dimensions. If I think of time as simply another coordinate (4D or more), then if I keep that coordinate fixed and change one of the first three, I have "movement" with time fixed.
Of course, this may be an abuse of language from me being a layman in physics.
Doesnt it simply become a line, or plane or hyper-plane or perhaps just a series of points? I don't think that this could be considered movement.
'Moving' while t is constant isnt really movement in any practical sense.
Movement must involve time (whatever that is!)
05 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Indeed... Like I said it depends on how you define movement, and I was defining more as a mathematician than as a physicist, so I was probably imprecise with my terminology.
Consider a point 'moving' while keeping t as constant. That means that at a single moment in time it occupies a number of places.
Doesnt it simply become a line, or plane or hyper-plane or perhaps just a series of points? I don't think that this could be considered movement.
'Moving' while t is constant isnt really movement in any practical sense.
Movement must involve time (whatever that is!)
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Much better explanation than mine!
Consider a point 'moving' while keeping t as constant. That means that at a single moment in time it occupies a number of places.
Doesnt it simply become a line, or plane or hyper-plane or perhaps just a series of points? I don't think that this could be considered movement.
'Moving' while t is constant isnt really movement in any practical sense.
Movement must involve time (whatever that is!)
06 Jan 10
1 edit
Of course, plenty of respected thinkers (in mathematics and physics, as well as philosophy) will tell you that time does not exist...
I first came accross the notion in the pop-science book What We Believe But Cannot Prove, where the Physicist Carolo Rovelli writes, "I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist..."
Of course, that is an inversion of the popular conviction, also inherently unprovable, that time does exist.
No great physicist me, but there is information out there to support the suggestion that makes for interesting (and, the deeper you go, baffling) reading.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by DrKFDo you remember the reason he gave for his conviction?
Of course, plenty of respected thinkers (in mathematics and physics, as well as philosophy) will tell you that time does not exist...
I first came accross the notion in the pop-science book What We Believe But Cannot Prove, where the Physicist Carolo Rovelli writes, "I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist..."
Of course, that is ...[text shortened]... support the suggestion that makes for interesting (and, the deeper you go, baffling) reading.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by PalynkaSadly, no - and I think the book is in storage in London.
Do you remember the reason he gave for his conviction?
The Edge has a piece where he expands, if only a little, though:
"I am convinced, but cannot prove, that time does not exist. I mean that I am convinced that there is a consistent way of thinking about nature, that makes no use of the notions of space and time at the fundamental level. And that this way of thinking will turn out to be the useful and convincing one.
I think that the notions of space and time will turn out to be useful only within some approximation. They are similar to a notion like "the surface of the water" which looses meaning when we describe the dynamics of the individual atoms forming water and air: if we look at very small scale, there isn't really any actual surface down there. I am convinced space and time are like the surface of the water: convenient macroscopic approximations, flimsy but illusory and insufficient screens that our mind uses to organize reality.
In particular, I am convinced that time is an artifact of the approximation in which we disregard the large majority of the degrees of freedom of reality. Thus "time" is just the reflection of our ignorance."
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_2.html
He then goes on to say that "I am also convinced, but cannot prove, that there are no objects, but only relations." 🙂