Yeah, but time is relative, right? So from your own perspective, you would still age and die. You would still experience time's passage, regardless of what happened with the rest of the universe. A light "particle" (or whatever) would transverse the universe as time went on, and could still be affected by stuff in the universe. So in that respect, I don't think it would all be the same moment. Because the "light" is not static relative to the universe. The two interact over time. I do not get how people can determine that time has not occurred merely because it has not been "observed". Why is observation required? Stuff happened in the universe long before any of us were here to observe it. There is stuff happening right now beyond the light barrier that we cant ever see. Time is occurring there, even though that light will never reach us, and thus will never be "observed". Emphasis mine. This has nothing to do with actual time. This has to do with the limitations (and adaptations) of our own organic bodies and how they sense time. Time functions independently of our observations. What you just described is completely subjective. Time is not objectively altered. Objectively, time did not slow down in that car crash. The car would have crashed at exactly the same speed even if no one was there to observe it.
If a planet would cross my way then I would "die" - but indeed I never had lived before. In the moment I was born I did not only knew something about my end - I would live my end in the moment of my birth. Experience is a psychological quality. Experiences need memories. Memories need time. Cannot be - if something is not interactive with the rest of the universe then it is not existing at all. Without [possible] interaction no existance. That's why you have to take mathematics serios in case of natural science. To use mathematics is "to think". Again: Without interaction we are not able to speak about exístance in natural science. Take our universe in total as an example. It is gigantic and very powerful - but is it really in this way? Perhaps all positive and negative energy is "0" in total and watched from outside (what is impossible because it looks like that there is no outside at all) we would perhaps not be able to see anything. With other words: All around you could exist in every point an unbelievable high number of universes - but as long as nothing interacts with our universe here this universes are not existing for us. And they are not able to interact with soemhtgin in this universe without any energy "outside". Confusing? It is - because we don't know how we are able to say something in such a context. I just simple said something about our own possibilities to express what we are not able to express. IN the eoterh side. Why is our universe accelerating expanding? Sorry - but I'm continously observing time. I'm growing old - that's a fact. I'm a kind of watch on my own. I never understood the concept "ovbservation" of the quantum theory. In my idea of the world the moon is for exampel 'observing' me in the moment what makes me a part of his/her reality. I'm not sure wether "interaction" and "to observe" is not the same thing. I don't know why some people introduced psychological qualities in quantum mechanics. This sounds not convincing in my ears. Please. You are saying now knowledge is not possible. Knowledge needs time, to learn needs time ... Car crash? Am I missing something? Where was a car crash? http://youtu.be/Yqa82hSWohc
How can that be true if time is relative? In your own space, time would proceed normally. You would not experience everything at once. Exactly. From your own perspective, time would still pass. Because time is relative. How did you determine that? And in this example, it would be interactive. Light can and does hit objects. They can affect the light (change it's direction for example) and it can affect them. Is that not interactive? I'd like to know how you determined that. If real world results contradict mathematical calculations, it means the math is either wrong or being interpreted incorrectly. I agree, but the bolded words imply speculation. We do not yet know all of the rules, and interaction between these universes might therefore be possible. When seen objectively, all those universes would still exist, despite the fact that they do not interact with each other. Existence is therefore independent of observation. The fact that you cant see something does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist. Maybe it is being "pulled" by a vacuum from outside as opposed to being "pushed" by a force from the inside. Maybe it is not an explosive force at all. (yes, before you bring it up, I do understand that the big bang is technically not an explosion) The really disturbing part to me is that mainstream scientists accept this as well. So maybe I just dont understand what they mean by "observe". I certainly do not believe that simply looking at something changes its nature.
Or the universe is not expanding but falling into a gigantic black hole. It would look like it was expanding...because the closer something gets to the center the faster it moves..but it may be shrinking...just apearing to expand. Sorry...just a thought. observation can fool people sometimes.
Yes, things/events have occurred and are occurring that we cannot and will not ever observe. However, applying the concept of "time" to these events is meaningless in a relativistic sense. As I said before, time is basically measurment of a sequence of events in relation to one another. If we cannot observe events, we cannot determine their relation. Observation is a necessary component of time. First, when I say "observe" I really mean time as being measured within a local frame of reference - with a clock, for instance. As such, the car crash discussion is a bad example. Factors such as emotion and adrenaline can alter our personal perception of time, but the driver in the accident and the observer are both in the same frame of reference, and thus time passed the same for both of them. In other words, time in general is subjective, however, it is objective to all observers within the same frame of reference. There really is no such thing as "actual time" in a general sense (only within a specific reference frame). In everyday life, the concept of time seems simple, mostly because everyone shares the same frame of reference at all times. We almost never deviate meaning we don't need to deal with relativity. But when trying to delve into the physics of "time", we realize it is not so simple. No, events function independently of our observation, but "time" is dependent on it. But that isn't objective - it is entirely subjective based on the reference frame of the observer. The driver is an observer. However if we alter the scenario to say he was unconscious and thus remove him as observer such that there are now no observers, the concept of time in specific relation to the crash is technically meaningless, at least in a relativistic sense. I understand the point you are trying to make, and in everyday life and normal discussion, it makes perfect sense. But when discussing within the realm of physics, everything is much more complicated.
Emphasis mine. I agree. But that is all subjective. "We" do not constitute all reality. It exists independently of us. Therefore the fact that "we" don't observe something does not mean it doesn't exist. Observation by us is not required for reality to function. No, it is only necessary for our subjective interpretation time. Time exists independently of us and our observations. Time existed long before we came along. No one was there to observe the formation of the moon, but we can infer what happened based on subsequent events. No observation occurred as the events were happening, yet time happened anyway. I suspected as much, which is why I think additional qualifiers are necessary to remove confusion. To a layman it sounds as if human observation is necessary for time to happen. I have heard theists use this in their arguments to "prove" God exists. Events require time to function. If you have no time, an event cannot occur. Therefore what I said is still true. Even if that is true, time itself did not actually slow down. The passenger simply experienced it slower. Time was always moving at the same speed (even if it is a relative speed). It is only the limitations of the passenger's senses that made it seem slower or faster to them. The passenger did not affect time. Lets say you had a computer/camera recording it. There are now no organic observers. The recording devices operate mechanically based on variables within the same frame as the event (the crash). That is objective IMO.
It actually does. Literally, the simple act of observing a particle changes its nature. I know this sounds odd, but quantum mechanics is... well... weird. We can test for this and observe it. Ever hear of the double-slit experiment? Basically, matter/energy exists as both particles and waves. Place a thin plate containing two verticle slits between an electron gun and a collector screen. If the electrons fired through are particles, it would create a specific pattern on the screen. However, if they behave as waves, they interfere with each other after passing through the slits and the pattern on the screen is different. When the test was first run by firing electrons one at a time, scientists expected the pattern to show that discreet particles were passing through the plate - but it didn't. The screen showed an interference pattern, which means that the electrons were passing through both slits at the same time (a wave). This seemed odd, so the scientists placed a detector (basically a camera) at the plate to observe what was going on with the electrons as they pass through the slits. Surprisingly, the pattern on the screen changed to behave as if the electrons are particles. Nothing else differed. The simple act of observation literally changed the behavior. Here is a video which explains it very well (much better than I did)... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc"]Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment - YouTube[/ame]
Of course not - only for the concept of "time" to make sense (in physics). It is exactly the opposite, actually. The measurement of time requires events. Without two or more events to compare, the concept of time is meaningless. As an example, imagine a distant star going supernova. This is an event. It could take hundreds of millions of years for the light from this event to reach us. Until that moment of observation, we did not even know the event occurred. We cannot measure "time" referencing that event until it is observed. Thinking of time like a "thing" such as this is misleading. "Time" cannot actually speed up or slow down. Time and the speed of light are inextricably linked as a relative constant. Our observation of events is at the core of the concept of time in physics. Relativity is literally a mathematical model of what one would observe (as in, measure from a local frame of reference). Yes, events occur without us witnessing them, but to apply the concept of time to events requires observation (within physics, not necessarily a lay discussion). Agreed, I mentioned this also. The observer(s) need not be human/organic - the camera would still qualify. But yes, within that particular reference frame, time is objective in relation to the crash and the camera.
Yeah, I have heard that before. But the truth is, they have no way of knowing that "observation" is what is changing the behavior, or even if anything is actually changing at all. They just see that stuff looks different than they predict it should. What control are they using to determine that "observing' is changing anything? Wouldn't you have to record something that is not being observed? But they arent doing that. All results are effectively being observed (they have to be in order for the results to be recorded), therefore they have no way of knowing that "observation" is a variable at all.
But the event occured nontheless. The fact that we may not know about it, or may not ever see it happen, does not change the reality. The reality is independent of our observations. It did occur, and has an affect on the rest of the universe, even if no one ever observed it. That is only relevant to us though. Time still exists independently of us. Observation is only relevant from OUR perspective. I do not think of it like a thing. I think of it as a medium, like space. Things exist within space. Events exist in time. The victim's perceptions of the crash did not alter it's speed. They are only relevant from the victim's perspective. The crash happened at the same "speed" no matter how fast or slow that particular person "thought" it was happening. I agree. I am explaining why the idea that observation is required for time, or that it can alter time, is absurd. All observation affects is our our subjective perception of time. Stuff happens on its own in the rest of the universe without anyone there to observe it, and that stuff is just as real as what we observe directly. This is what I was saying earlier...when people say "observation is a part of time", they need to qualify that statement IMO to remove confusion. I'm not trying to nitpick here...to people who are not familiar with this stuff, it is very easy to assume "observe" in this context means something completely different from what was intended.
There is a simple lack of understanding on what "observation" means in physics. It does not imply that "human" observation is required but a measurement which can be performed by nature itself. For instance, some atom's decay faster when there is a constant measurement or interaction with its environment, on the latter some decay slower. A photon bouncing off of a neutron and then being absorbed by hydrogen is a form of observation.
basically, a mechanism to record the reaction. ie... a light bulb lights up, when the per se electron passes thru the filliment. , that is a common sense comprehension and he dont realize that just busts up a bunch of laws. ie.... if a proton is spinning thru an accelerator, the mass is not per se increasing based on the speed, but based on the fields it is crossing during the motion. likewise, it is how an equilibration or perfectly, how the 2LoT is measured.............. 'differences of the environment'............. Funny part is, it is a macro analogy and why CERN folk are not taking into consideration the crossing of fields as being the cause of the increased "state" (mass increase by speed) great post AT man............... you never cease to amaze me at what you will post without comprehending what you wrote
I understand that, and I completely agree. My point was that attempting to apply the concept of "time" to such an unobserved event is meaningless. How could I have measured how long ago the supernova took place (for example) before actually observing it happen? This is actually part of my point. Time itself is only relevant to the observer (or more specifically, to the observing frame of reference). This statements needs clarification. I assume by "us", you mean humans on Earth. If by "time" you mean simply the concept of measuring the relation between events, then I agree. An alien race on some distant planet can use the same concept for measuring time within their frame of reference and that would be independent of us. However, if you are using "time" to refer to a comparison of events specifically from our frame of reference, then I disagree. In this regard, "time" is literally dependent on us. When referencing our frame, the concept of "time" applied to events that have not been observed by us is meaningless (in physics) - it doesn't make any sense within relativity. As I have said, this is correct, but only to observers within the same frame of reference. For example, if an alien observed the crash while flying past Earth at 80% the speed of light, from its perspective, it would have happened much faster. I agree that it is necessary to define "observe". The context of the driver experiencing the crash more slowly is completely different from an observer witnessing the crash from a different frame of reference. As I said, the car crash is a bad example when speaking in relativistic terms.
If the entire universe was frozen at 0 degree Kelvin, and all atomic, molecular motion ceases, would time still exist?
Exactly. THAT is what I wanted to hear. Non-scientists hear "observation" and think it means a person has to observe it. And that is a big deal, because it implies something about nature that is certainly NOT true.
It is no more meaningless than speculating about any other property of reality that we will never see. I watched an a show on PBS last night where they used a "slice" analogy for time, and it did make it easier to understand IMO. By measuring it's effects on the rest of the universe after the fact. Yes. See my previous post. The term "observation" needs to be qualified, because it means different things to different people. And what scientists mean when they use that term in this context is NOT how the average person understands the term IMO. I would go even further and say that the victim's frame of time is not being altered at all, even if his perception of it is. Time is moving at the same rate in his frame, no matter how fast or slow he is perceiving it. Because time is based on gravity and motion....not his senses. It is independent of his observation. I disagree...I think it is a great example to illustrate what "observe" means. How reality is completely independent from our own perception of reality.
What you are describing is heat death. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe - And the short answer is: no. Technically stuff would still be moving (I think Photons never decay for example, and they never slow down no matter how cold it gets). Heat death could lead to a vacuum phase transition though. My favorite end-of-world scenario.
There has been enough data gathered thus far to state Relativity theory is an accepted and valid means of explaining many things...science however does not like the word proven and only uses it when data is absolute. Time is an ephemeral means of designating events as occurring and momentum/light are but one way to define "Time" is occurring.
Hootie wrote he didn't believe in time. He must not have had to wait for a woman to get dressed and ready to go out, huh? [video=youtube;YWisBGNQCg0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWisBGNQCg0[/video]
The complexities of Female time have never been well explained with science, however understanding the event is not always required to address the realities of it.....as an example: My wife and I are going out to dinner tonight for a birthday celebration with family. The event is scheduled for 6PM but she does not know the time as of yet. I will explain we need to be there at 5PM, which will allow for our arrival by 6:30 and assure limited problems and a pleasant night. Time can obviously be manipulated when required.
Time is movement, and gravity restricts movement however time is still relative to the individual due to their mass... At the same time space and gravity are two different dimensions... No one really knows what time actually is or how it really works.... I mean we both could go to work at the same time and I could say "wow, this day wen't by fast" and you could say "hell no it felt like a year"..... Is that really time tho or perception? Then again, time really is just measurement and interpretation... Who says time really exists? perhaps we humans need time to justify our existence...
Time isn't movement. Time is the flow of events, and events can occur in the same location (I pooped, then I peed, at the same location...flow of events not necessarily location). That flow is governed by the 3rd law of thermodynamics along with quantum uncertainty. If we both went to work and had a clock, we can go to work at the same time. We set an alarm on each of our clocks for 8 hours later. Eight hours later both alarms go off and we recognize we were at work for 8 hours. What we "feel" doesn't matter, since we have scientific instruments (a pair of clocks). You can feel the Earth is flat, but that isn't science. Gravity only restricts movement if your working against it. Put an object at rest in a gravitational field, it will move. That's not restriction of movement, gravity enables it. Time is relative individual due to their mass? Well ok, I guess fat people do live a shorter lifespan, but from a physics perspective I don't see the relationship. I'm pretty sure my 110lb wife experiences time the same as her 180lb husband. I say time really exists. I was born. Now it's much later in time and I'm still here. I can expect that I won't be here in the future. By that measure I need time to justify my own snuffing. Since no one lives forever, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Time is without question movement - that has already been proven as fact.... If you travel 15,000 miles an hour orbiting Earth for a year and if I stay on Earth and adhere to gravity - then when you return - I will have aged more than you, but not by much, perhaps a billionth of a second, however there is still a difference. Atomic clocks have proved this.... Hell our GPS satellites are programmed to deal with this... Yes, speed is time hence gravity is time..
Time is not movement. If I fart sitting on my computer chair at 5am, I then fart on my chair at 6am. No movement. Well perhaps a bowel movement even though I hope not, but (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. Most clocks are dependent upon kinetic movement so I can understand your misunderstanding, but a lot of clocks are not dependent upon movement. In your description you start off "If you travel...". You begin to describe time with movement, as if there's no other way to describe time, which I totally reject. The "gravity is time" is just absolute nonsense.
