Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Is time an abstract idea?

I agree completely with that professor. In a particular way it means that all of us are philosophers because it is an intrinsic property of everything that we are. We are compelled by our very nature and from that which we are to seek resolution to our confrontation of all that is before us. The most driving compunction we have is the search for understanding of our existence. This takes many paths as you know. It is possible to articulate in a scientific way how we are compelled to seek inward for answers but not in this forum. The "appearances" before us are all the "effects" of something else, so we have taken a track labeling the genesis thus far as particles and fields which is pretty much where the findings stop. But these are only effects too and the inward search continues to find the source for those. Many think that is all there is but they are wrong, and it will be our ability to go farther inward to obtain an acceptable final understanding. Where we are being led is no accident.

exnihilo

We all do look inward and unfortunatly one of the first things we see is that we are mortal. This becomes so anxiety producing that almost everything that we do is a result of this first inward glance. First we created soul, then gods, then God, then religion in our search for life everlasting.

Why not to keep the subject? It's the question "Is time an abstract idea?", anything else is just a manifestation of incompetence to keep the subject and to answer questions briefly and clearly.

In my opinion we are on topic (for a change). Coberst raises the issue of "temporality" as a by-product of "cognition" (and its subsequent implication for religiosity) This certainly has relevance for a consideration of the phrase "abstract idea". Ironically, it was Heidegger in his anti-philosophical work (Being and Time) who concretised time as the essence of "existence", whereas Einstein's relativistic stance might imply time's abstract nature.

The "solution" if any, may well reside in differential uses of the word "time". Anthropologists underscore variation of usage when they cite languages (e.g. Hopi) with no conventional tenses.

Yes, and we "created" a paradigm of energy that has no bearing on whatever reality we may have attached to ourselves. To assimilate that dichotomy into coherence for understanding is a problem isn't it?

We should make clear few things about time. Bellow are two animations of particle gas collisions. One of them is reversed. Which one is it?

.

If one is reversed, than both are reversed.

Here's no observational physical evidence for time flow or time reversal. If we cannot distinguish any evolution of system, system is effectivelly atemporal.

It means, time is more subtle quantity, then presence of motion. Our feeling of time flow for system in motion is just connected with our experience, system in motion usually develops in time. But if system doesn't develop, time is effectivelly stoped for such system, despite of its full of motion.

OK, another example. Water surface can serve as a 2D model of space-time for surface wave spreading. Whereas underwater is full of chaotically moving water molecules, the time doesn't exist there, despite underwater is full of motion.

As the result, surface waves cannot spread through underwater, underwater is effectivelly void and empty space. It doesn't exist at all for surface waves.

Aether Wave Theory is based on assumption, particle motion is omnipresent in Universe, so that the motion is not related directly to time arrow. The ratio between mass and energy density is what determines time arrow more exactly: if Aether gas cools, it condenses and time arrow becomes reversed - and vice versa. This ratio is basically defined by dimensional scale of observer, nothing else.



As the result, we are observing pair of time arrows in our Universe, which depends on size of human scale: the small objects evaporate into radiation, whereas larger objects condense by their gravity like particles of cooled gas. Just the whole combination of these time arrows determines the cosmological time for human observer in general sense. From perspective of insintric observer, Universe appears like it would travel through density gradient, forming event horizon of black hole. But from more general view this evolution is just an illusion, which follows from insintric observational perspective inside of fractal Aether foam, because we are connecting the observation of microscopic scale with the future of Universe expansion, the past with observation of vast cosmic space.

Zephir__

It was you who claimed one was reversed, I made no consideration of motion in my answer.

Matter, space, and motion, are intricately connected to time, the basis for relativity which is incomplete, but thus far there is no solution how are they connected. Indeed, time is a subtle quanity but it hasn't as yet been quantized. There is a scenario in which time becomes quantized but to understand it requires a different approach than all that is tossed around currently, including here.

There is so much contributing to our lack of understanding time. If a system in linear motion stops, does its motion stop? What an inane question one might suggest. Well, I would argue no because the particles of the system are in constant motion regardless of its linear progress. Where does one go from there? Well, if the motion of the particles stop does the motion of the particles stop? I'll let you chew on that for awhile.

I'm not very knowledgable about the subject, but I don't think Time is abstract. I mean, we face it and deal with it and think about it all the time. See, even me saying that involves using the word 'time' because it is a large basis for our society. Time is linear because that's just how it works from our perspective, although maybe not from others like the red shift or looking at faraway galaxies, thats a different perspective.
It could be abstract, but since we deal with it so much we've become so accustomed to it that it's engraved in us in absolute terms, like I've got a class at 11:30 or meet you at 7 tonight, etc.

Tim, I like your response. Time is not abstract but I wonder how many know why it isn't? Not many should. Your thoughts about it deals with linear motion as it should, and it is all we have to go by, unless there is something missing in any consideration. I think there is and it has nothing to with linear progress. When we consider time whether directly or indirectly we are dealing with motion, linear motion, which is your thesis. But things at rest are also in motion and that motion as yet has been not part of the universal conversation. I just asked someone if the motion of particles stops does its motion stop? A riddle, sure, but it has a foundation. Particles display a vertical motion, they vibrate even if linear translation is not taking place, and it is perpetual. If the particle stops vibrating does its motion stop? To answer that one would have to know if the particle is self-contained or if there is a source of motion moving the particle? If there is a source than we should be studying motion and not the particle, right? There are no studies I'm aware of that study's the motion of particles. Particles plenty, but it is motion that holds the key to understanding. It is the answer to the mystery of time. Everything else is suspicious and arbitrary.

Isn't that what Einstein got his Nobel Prize for studying--Brownian Motion?

But what about all the studies on absolute zero?
...and much of spectroscopy is studying the motion of individual atoms.
...or what about Bose-Einstein Condensates?

But of course the electrons are never at rest....
===

But that is all based on our macroscopic concepts of motion; which are probably at best a metaphor for reality.

You can't have time without space, nor space without time; so whatever you say about time should hold true for space also--it's spacetime, not time you should be talking about.

To answer your first question: Yes, but the study was of the
particles not the motion!

The Einstein/Bose study of condensates was upper most in my mind. It confirmed the particle vibration stopped when the teampature was reduced to about two degrees centigrade above absolute zero. This is where the riddle is relevant. The condensate study was done with proton's. At that tempature the proton begins to melt, kind of like an ice cube, and it spreads out from its intrinsic formation. The way we know it stops vibrating is that it no longer moves a detection device. That is behind my question; the particle stops but does the motion stop? I said no because I believe a particle is not self-contained and there is a universal motion (oscillator) that underpins their vibration. What is it? That has to wait.

You are right about space/time. We should be talking about it but they are connected to motion and matter and motion must be studied to understand anything. That is what I am referring to, the most basic ingredient relative to matter, energy, space, and time. Motion is more fundamental than all archived theory and the least thing analyzed. It is the stumbling block for unity of forces. They haven't come up with an oscillator for particles. The right perspective will get them there and I hope they discover it. It has been discovered but I can't say by whom. So space/time is fundamental but how they are connected is more fundamental.

I wonder if you know how insightful your metaphor for reality is?

Zephir, I should comment. The particles you speak of, "quarks", are "virtual" particles predicted by a mathematical model. If you knew of the process in accelertors and the process for determining whether a particle exists or not you would have to be suspicious. The model predicts a particle "should" be a part of the permanent particle (say proton) and from collisions of protons certain tracks of energy are examined from a bubble chamber. If a certain track has the mass and spin of the predicted particle it is accepted and confirmed. Virtual particles don't really exists but because a track fits the model it is guarnteed to be "discovered". This particle may have only billionths of a second lifespan but it fits a profile. There are thousands and thousands of these tracks examined, after this fact. Particles gain about forty-thousand times their rest mass due Einstein's theory of motion, (kinetic energy), so what happens to all of this excess energy upon collision? Pray tell how does one distinguish a track intiated from the excess energy and the original mass of the proton? There is much more to this, so I'll leave it here, but keep in mind virtual means something doesn't really exist but accepted as if it did, and that is what the models are predicting.

I don't understand your monologues. Just quote a particular sentence, which u don't agree and try to explain in brief, why did you so.
Everything else is irrelevant for me. Don't repeat notoriously known things here. I needn't your explanation, what the virtual particles are, as I can read about it in much more conscious and coherent way from Wikipedia directly.

Zephir, let us try to get something straight. I do not disagree with anyone or anything directly. Someone makes a comment expecting responses. I respond by conveying "skepticism" based on a long-term review of theoretical physics and cosomology where there is much confusion and uncetainty about findings. There are too many flaws accepted in that arena in conflict and if not flaws certainly leaving too many questions unanswered. For example, Pauli's exclusion principle resolves that the reason electrons do not crash into the nucleus, and they should, is because two particles can't occupy the same space at the same time. This opens up a whole slew of questions and I'll relate one.

When two protons are in close proximity they repel each other by a repulsive force. However, if enough pressure is applied to force them closer and closer one will suddenly be "sucked" into the other quite rapidly. That seems to deny Pauli's exclusion principle ipso facto. So what I am doing is raising questions about some serious problems in theory that aren't being raised and they are legitimate concerns. This example raises a whole lot of further questions such as electron degenercy as a basis for exploding supernova's, and frankly, these kinds of paradox's are rampant throughout theory. Can I back that up, I believe so but not in this venue. I would have to convey too much background to give it a fair airing. For that reason I don't attempt to back it up. Sorry you are stuck with just "some" of the reasoning behind my "monologue's".