In all our systems in engineering and science we represent the time as our independent variable, that is x(t). Then we use the great theorems of Lapalace, Fourier, and Lyapunov to analyze and study these systems. Is there any other formulation that does not assume the independence of time.
"A possible view on the concept of time is that it is not an element of nature but an element of our thinking about nature". Yes
"time has only the mathematical existence". Yes also.
But, does the time "exist" itself? No, as thinks Kant; he is right. "time" is a product of the human brain. the mathematical time exists only as a product of our humanity. And if we take a clock (wich seems to work like a periodic event) we think that the time exists. No, it exists only a phenomenum which seems periodic. But it is very usefull to choose a clock to make science, so to predict phenomena, but never for explain these phenomena.
Hope this helps
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27645704/why-the-time-of-a-signal-is-an-independent-variable
Study the special relativity, the general relativity and the periodic relativity.
Article Periodic relativity: Basic framework of the theory
The answer is no - time is not necessarily an independent variable, especially in general relativity it is a function of the relative velocity of an object.
A possible view on the concept of time is that it is not an element of nature but an element of our thinking about nature. That opinion starts from the fact that the phenomena behave the way they do: the world reveals itself as a temporalizing presence, phenomena have a duration, events can be dated.
This view leads to the definition of time as an independent variable t: a continuous, monotonously increasing reel quantity generated by a “standard clock”. A “clock”, is a device in which passes a phenomenon whose evolution can be represented by a quantifiable effect, and a “standard clock” is a clock based on the existence of periodic processes, more specifically on the counting of the vibrations of a cesium atom.
Well, in cases that are stationary, energy conserving, abscence of friction, then you can pretend that time is not involved.
In physics one can imagine that a large enough
closed system may be energy conserving, but this is not always possible.
Otherwise time is essential, as in expansion of the universe.
"A possible view on the concept of time is that it is not an element of nature but an element of our thinking about nature". Yes
"time has only the mathematical existence". Yes also.
But, does the time "exist" itself? No, as thinks Kant; he is right. "time" is a product of the human brain. the mathematical time exists only as a product of our humanity. And if we take a clock (wich seems to work like a periodic event) we think that the time exists. No, it exists only a phenomenum which seems periodic. But it is very usefull to choose a clock to make science, so to predict phenomena, but never for explain these phenomena.
Dear Colleagues Thank you very much for your answers. I can conclude that:
1) time is not necessarily an independent variable @Johannes Gruenwald.
2) it is not an element of nature but an element of our thinking about nature @Antoine J.H. Acke.
3) time has only the mathematical existence @Amrit Sorli.
4) "time" is a product of the human brain. the mathematical time exists only as a product of our humanity @Michel Mizony.
5) in cases that are stationary, energy conserving, abscence of friction, then you can pretend that time is not involved @Juan Weisz.
Best Regards
Ashraf
“Is the time really an independent variable?”
- the time, and the space as well, are fundamentally different and independent variables. More see, for example, in the SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_underlying_nature_of_time?tpr_view=E10vuDzRb617lQXjvNL8kA4s30ZAK2wkqDkI_3#59c62a79cbd5c20ea40a625c
and links in this post.
Cheers
At our macroscopic scale, the macro-time is a statistical emergence, and has no causal power in microphysics.
Time evolves with event happening in space. Hence quantization of time are possible, with event requiring energy for action to occur. time = code marking event proceeding.
“…the macro-time is a statistical emergence…”
“…Time evolves with event happening in space. Hence quantization of time are possible…”
The notions/phenomena “Space”, “Time”, “Matter”; and “Consciousness” since there exists rather popular “definition” of “Time”
“…that it is not an element of nature but an element of our thinking about nature"…”,
are Meta-mainstream philosophical and so Meta “mainstream-usual-scientific” notions/phenomena, which till now remain be fundamentally transcendent and so principally non-cognizable in the mainstream. Thus if some “definition” of Time appears in framework of the mainstream, it inevitably isn’t adequate to the objective reality, as the quoted above. The rational understanding/definitions of these Meta-notions/phenomena are possible in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute ] only,
where it is shown that Space and Time are fundamental [“grammar”] Rules/possibilities that are fundamentally necessary for any/every informational object/system of the objects [when there exist nothing else then some informational patterns /objects/systems] to exist and to change at alll; together they, as the Possibilities, for concrete objects/systems compose the objects’/systems’ “spacetimes”, where the possibilities are the “dimensions”. More concretely as the Possibilities they are the possibilities for objects/systems to realize their concrete degrees of freedom at the changes, and so indeed are “emerged” in this sense by these objects/systems.
Thus both phenomena above exist absolutely objectively, including absolutely independently on what some thinker thinks about Nature and about them.
Matter is the informational system where all/every object, i.e. particles, bodies, galaxies, etc. have 4 fundamental degrees of freedom: 3 [“6=>±3”] degrees at changing of fixed states [3 spatial dimensions] and 1 [“2=>±1”] degree for changes of their internal states without changing their spatial positions [1 “coordinate time” dimension]. Besides the dynamical [changing] system’s “Matter” spacetime contains also absolutely fundamental and universal, and so obligatory for all dynamical objects/systems, “additional dimension “true time”, which is the possibility for any change, i.e of a spatial position and/or of an internal state.
Thus Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian manifold [in physics]/ [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where material objects and Matter as a whole exist and change [in the objective reality].
These spacetime/container are absolute, in the sense that they relate to utmost fundamental Matter’s degrees of freedom, and so can be changed only if in Matter some fundamental changes, that require additional possibilities to change, appear. But any concrete material object cannot change the spacetime fundamentally, that can make only possible Matter’s Creator. Either “reference frames”, or “observers”, or “masses”, etc. cannot to impact/to transform either space or time. In the objective reality there fundamentally cannot be and so aren’t any “space contractions”, “time dilations”, “spacetime bending,”, etc.; as that is postulated in the SR/GR.
And either Time or Space, either the Rules or as the Possibilities, cannot and don’t “evolve”.
Though, since every change is accompanied by some temporal interval, changing objects/systems so move in the [usually in both, though some particles, e.g., photons move in the 5-th, i.e. “true time” dimension, only] time dimension(s), but that is concrete motion of concrete objects/systems. As, for example, if a car moves from point A to point B, the space doesn’t evolve, only concrete distances from the car to the points “evolve”.
More about Matter and its concrete spacetime see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
Cheers
So short pages are in this thread, however…
Article the Information as Absolute
Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics
Dear Jacques, thank you very much for answering my question.
Best Regards
Ashraf
Dear Sergey, thank you for your extensive answer and I found your papers very interesting I will read them and give you my feedback.
Best Regards
Ashraf
Dear Sergey,
It is not science, it's a kind of scientism; would you read Zenon and after Kant?
Michel
Dear Michel,
“…It is not science, it's a kind of scientism; would you read Zenon and after Kant?…”
- that seems as isn’t either science, or a kind of scientism; that is something else. For me, for example, it is uninteresting who and what read; all what is interesting – what concretely this who says/writes and what concrete arguments he uses.
So all what I can note here is a couple of comments:
Firstly, relating to the Kant’s idea [in which you seems believe] about the notion/phenomenon time that the time is purely abstract product of human’s consciousness, when she labels the sequences of events: it evidently isn’t adequate to the reality, the phenomenon “Time”, i.e. the absolutely fundamental Rule/Possibility that is obligatorily necessary for any dynamical system be able to change, existed in the dynamical system “Matter” [and in the dynamical non-material systems “humans’ consciousnesses” also, though the consciousnesses exist and change in other then Matter’s spacetime] very long temporal interval before Kant [and before anybody else who could think, of course] and will exist, let us hope, very long temporal interval after.
Kant was indeed outstanding philosopher, including one of most important philosophical result, which he obtained, is the proof of that in framework of existent in his time philosophy [which is practically the same in the mainstream till now] it is impossible to prove/to disprove either existence or non-existence of God, i.e. that the struggle of religions and atheism is senseless.
What is important, this proof is, in fact, the proof that it is impossible to prove/disprove the truth either of Materialism or of Idealism also. “Consciousnesses”, “Spirits”, “Ideas”, etc. in Idealism by any means doesn’t differ from God(s) in any religion; i.e. these “non-material” Essences in Idealism are completely and fundamentally transcendent [and so non-cognizable], – and that all is true to the main Essence in Materialism “Matter”.
Besides the Meta-philosophical notions/phenomena/Essences above, which, of course, were transcendent for Kant also, the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” are Meta [i.e. transcendent] notions/phenomena as well; and some things that Kant claimed relating to acting of these Essences [“thinking” by consciousness about Matter and Time] had [and has] no rational sense.
Relating to Zeno: when somebody attempt to understand something the first obligatory step is the formulation of rational questions relating to this something. In mathematics even a “rule” exists: “correctly formulated problem is half of solution of the problem”. And Zeno in the reality had made all rational in the ontology of the space and time, or, more correctly, in the ontology of the absolutely fundamental notions/phenomenon ”Change” , when genially and clearly proved that infinitesimal changes, including in space and in time, are logically inconsistent; so – why do the changes happen?.
And nothing new appeared till now in the mainstream philosophy in next 2500 years, there were nothing besides some scholastic exercises with claiming of/exchanging by some non-provable, non-disprovable and practically non-testable [including Kant’s] statements.
Again, the rational understanding what are the main philosophical Meta-notions [“Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Life”, “Change”, etc.] is possible only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception – see the links in the SS post above. It would be useful to read SS posts at least on few last pages in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory?view=59c8849d3d7f4b884b335e0a
Cheers.
Sergey
Time is as much independent variable as independent is the indication of a clock it refers to. If you use Sun's elevation while traveling it depends on your speed and Earth's location. If you count time in days in one location it is independent no matter how long the day lasts according to atomic clocks.
“…Time depends, for example, on spatial properties. The speed of light in vacuum is an invariable…”
- to assert such things evidently it is necessary before to understand – what are “time”, “space” and “spatial properties”, and “the speed of light”, or, more correctly, what is “speed” and what is “light”. When [see SS posts above and the links in the posts]
space and time are simply mutually independent fundamental and fundamentally different Rules/Possibilities, which, at least as the possibilities, are necessary for any dynamical object could exist and change, at that spatial possibilities/dimensions [3 in Matter’s spacetime] are the possibilities to have different positions of fixed [informational] objects/systems of the objects, when [2 in Matter]temporal possibilities/dimensions are the possibilities to have different states of changing [informational] objects/systems of the objects;
which simply exist and don’t depend on – exists or not any material object at all, moves this object in the 3D space or not; including the light is nothing more then motion in the 3D space of Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime of rather banal particles, i.e., photons, which aren’t, of course, some magic and mighty creations that “make [by some mystic way] time dependent on spatial properties” [as that is indeed postulated as “discovered fundamental property of the space and time in the SR/GR”] and so cannot be some cause of any space/time dependence.
As well as
“…Time is as much independent variable as independent is the indication of a clock it refers to…”
Again, the answer on the problem of some possible dependence of time on something [this thread’s question]” is rather evident and a few times is explained in the SS posts above: the time in both realizations, i.e.
as the Rule, which establishes that between different states of any changing object/system obligatorily must be something what humans call “time [temporal] interval”, which always must not be equal to zero exactly, correspondingly some time intervals obligatorily accompany every change of every object, these increasing [decreasing for antiparticles] time intervals at sequential changes is the motion of objects in temporal dimension;
and as the Possibility, which is the possibility for anything to change, i.e. is the time is “the space for changes”. Thus a distance in temporal possibility/dimension/axis “t” between an changing object’s states “A” and “B” is practically the same as, e.g., a distance at motion of an object in the spatial possibility/dimension/axis “X” between points “A” and “B”;
- is independent on anything in Matter. However this fact doesn’t follows, again, either from the existence/motion of the light or from the existence/motion of any clocks, which aren’t some magic things also [though that is in fact postulated in the SR/GR also], which can by some again magic way to impact on the time. For the time it is totally all the same, thick something in Matter or not, it simply always exists and always acts as the Rule and as the Possibility.
Cheers
The time factor is a measure of duration of processes. It is a convenient means to observe and measure the progressive changes that occur during processes.
With respect to motion for example, since the arrival of a particle cannot logically precede its departure from some other location, it seems to me that it is logically impossible that some amount of time would not be involved between both events.
The problem of the nature of time (as well as space) dealt with by Zeno, Plato ("Thymeus"), Aristotle "(Physics", book 4, ch.10), Newton, Kant, Bergson, Einstein and others was ultimately regarded as unclear: clock must somehow be gauged, and this procedure implies an already existing concept of metric. In particular, Weyl in his "Space, time, matter" had to introduce metrical units merely as his main hypothesis. It might be shown, however, that physics could dispence with metrics - clocks, rulers, coordinates etc. (see: http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2016-02.pdf).
dear Ashraf, you are speaking about . if a variable appears in a formula/law, then that law/formula is not independent in time. and: if a variable does not appear in a describing formula (or a law), then that law is independent of the variable.
for ex.: in the law of gravity there is no -variable, so the law should be time-independent, but space dependent, while R (distance) appears.
you are right that first one has to define: time. in my opinion time is motion depending on velocity and acceleration, i.e. it is self-referring. like one can see: I have my definition of time, so I can claim and argue.
Dear Paul, thank you very much for contributing to the answers. What I am thinking of, some day we may be able to remove the time from dynamical equations and we may reach to simpler formulation for some problems.
Best Regards
Ashraf
Dear Ashraf,
I agree with you that removing the time factor from dynamical equations can greatly simplify the formulation of many problems.
In fact, there exists a quantum of action constant based on distance not currently used in fundamental physics, that allows calculating energy as easily as Planck's time based quantum of action.
it is established as equation (2) in the following paper, and allows moreover establishing for the first time that Planck's quantum of action can be defined exclusively from a set of established electromagnetic constants, thus establishing h as being not only an electrodynamic ad hoc established constant, but a true first principle derived electromagnetic constant.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf
Dear Ashraf abd Andre,
Just the complete removing of metrical notions like time duration and space length from physical constructions is the main concern in my book entitled "Irony of the Method": http://www.ptep-online.com/complete/PiP-2016-02.pdf.
Dear Ashraf and Andre,
“…some day we may be able to remove the time from dynamical equations and we may reach to simpler formulation for some problems…”;
“….I agree with you that removing the time factor from dynamical equations can greatly simplify the formulation of many problems….”
In the SS post above it is pointed [rigorously proven in the “The Information as Absolute” conception] that the phenomenon “Time” is absolutely fundamental Rule/Possibility that is necessary for any dynamical, i.e. changing, object/system could exist as something changing at all, and so the realizations of this phenomenon in concrete systems, including in the principally dynamic system “Matter”, exist always and absolutely objectively really. Besides in Matter two rules/possibilities “time” exist and act, the Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D (=3D spatial and 2D temporal) Euclidian manifold.
It seems as rather evident that if somebody in some theory excludes some really objectively existent Matter’s component, then such thing seems as questionable; when the theory for sure becomes be at least simply incomplete. And if this component is absolutely fundamental, then that is principally questionable. Thus some claims that in such cases some theory becomes be more adequate to the objective reality seem as rather strange also.
Time cannot be excluded with some profit from the physical theories, it must be in them. However it must be introduced in the theories correctly, for what is necessary to understand – what are “Time”, “Space”, and “Matter” in the reality. If in a theory some erroneous definitions of these phenomena are introduced/used, - as that, for example, is in the SR/GR, then yeah, sometimes it would be better not to use these phenomena/parameters…
“…Planck's quantum of action can be defined exclusively from a set of established electromagnetic constants, thus establishing h as being not only an electrodynamic ad hoc established constant, but a true first principle derived electromagnetic constant….”
Plank’s elementary quantum of action is just the fundamental quantum of action, which is fundamental in Matter not only in electrodynamics; all interactions by every Nature force are “quantized” in accordance with this constant. Besides it is elementary quantum of the angular momentum. And in all cases this action is a “quantum of the uncertainty” of physical states of material objects, as ΔpΔx, ΔEΔt [ΔE/Δω], etc. Such changes of the actions in material systems, and when a spin flips as well, since all/ everything is/are some informational structures, when the informational system “Matter” is some structure that operate basing on rather simple logical rules, rather probably relate to changes of the information on one bit. And just that is the first principles…
Cheers
Dear Ashraf, it seems that you rewrite my attached PDF is superfluous, everybody can to download the file from my post above; when the text as a post occupies rather large space on the page.. So seems it would be rational if you will delete this your post
-?
Cheers again
Dear Sergey,
Of course, I did not mean that time should be removed from all equations.
But many equations dealing with energy could be reworked not to use Planck's time based constant without ill effects.
In fact, an entirely new perspective could be gained from such an exercise, because the Coulomb force which is in action between charges does not induce energy as a function of time, but strictly as a function of the distance between charges (the inverse square of the distance in fact), irrespective of the time elapsed.
If two charges are kept captive at a fixed distance from each other, then the energy adiabatically induced in them by the Coulomb force will remain fixed irrespective of the time elapsed.
A good example is the ground state orbital of the hydrogen atom, where the electron is permanently induced with 27.2 eV by the Coulomb force irrespective of the time elapsed.
Moreover, you don't even need Planck's constant to calculate this amount of energy.
With equation E=e2/(2 eps_0 alpha lambda) for example, by using the wavelength of the energy induced at the hydrogen ground state (4.55633525E-8m), you obtain the exact energy of the hydrogen ground state (4.359743809E-18 j), that is, 27.2 eV just as with the Coulomb equation.
Alternately, if you want the wavelength of this amount of energy, the reverse operation is as easy, without any need of h, nor of any time being involved.
Planck's constant is fine for calculating energy, but is not in complete sync with the Coulomb equation, because it does not calculate energy as a function of the axial distance between charges, which is something that its distance based counterpart (H=1.98644544E-25 j• m) directly allows. It is a quantum of action just as fundamental as h. It simply never was used.
I think that many equations now using time based h would greatly gain in convergence it they were reworked to become in sync with the Coulomb equation.
Dear André, Sergey and Fleix, I would like to thank you all for your valuable comments and answers. This discussion helped me a lot in understanding this topic and proved that my intuition was not wrong. I will read the attached documents in the answers and will get back soon.
Best Regards
Ashraf
Dear André,
Firstly
“…But many equations dealing with energy could be reworked not to use Planck's time based constant without ill effects…”
- Planck time is the fundamental Matter’s parameter, which relates to the Planck constant only since it is the time interval, when the “action uncertainty quantum” ΔEΔt is equal to ћ if the energy ΔE in this case is equal to the “rest mass” energy of the Planck mass
[for particles outside some force fields all their energies are kinetic energies, if a particle is at the [absolute] 3D spatial rest that is kinetic energy of the motion of the particle with the speed of light along [“coordinate time”] t-axis/dimension]
but that is rather far away from this thread’s problem of the dependence/independence on something of the phenomenon “Time”.
To the rest of this your post: again, the Rule/Possibility “Time” acts only when something changes, it doesn’t act in fixed objects/systems. In Matter every material object always and uninterruptedly changes and so all/every objects and the system “Matter” as a whole constantly move in depth in the true time [on Earth practically everything besides the Nature fundamental forces mediators, e.g., photons, moves in the coordinate time simultaneously also], but there exist some “fixed”, i.e. stationary systems, for example the atoms. These systems indeed are described by Schrödinger equation “without time”. But any change, including when an atom is created by connecting electrons around the nucleus, is a non-stationary process, which is accompanied by radiation of photons, for Hydrogen, say, of the Balmer series ћωi. and correspondingly such processes can be completely described only by using the temporal variable obligatorily.
Yeah, in Matter there exist, of course stationary, i.e. existing in the time(s) as an execution of the same algorithm [atoms, inertially moving bodies, etc.] and changing, when just the algorithms are changing, objects /systems – and what?
Including, again returning to the thread’s question, from this fact by any means doesn’t follow some necessity for the time be dependent on something in Matter. Again more see SS posts above and the links in the posts.
Cheers
I don’t see in my posts the always earlier existent option “Edit”. Indeed in many other forums application of this option is limited, usually from a couple of yours to one day; but it exists obligatorily, misprints at the posting are possible often. But now here it doesn’t exist at all, only there is the option “Delete”. Who and why made such very strange RG upgrade?
Cheers
I agree with you Sergey,
This awkward removal of the edit option completely hinders the possibility of correcting typos that we find by rereading our text after posting.
I see no valid reason for removing this option.
These conversations are casual and the system should not prevent users from clarifying their ideas when they find upon re-reading that they could have been clearer, or that they forgot to put quotes in italic, of forgot to format c2 as c2.
Quite unfortunate and inconvenient. This removes a quite useful convenience.
Dear Sergey,
I agree with you that Planck's constant is one of the fundamental constants. But it is not the only constant that can be used for the purpose.
It would not be possible to explain why in such a conversation, all the more so since we cannot correct errors anymore, but if you read the paper titled "The Last Challenge of Modern Physics" that I gave a link to a few posts back, you could see what I mean.
I did not reformulate all equations that could gain from this new perspective, but the basic idea is explained.
as long as Time (T) does not appear in a law description, that law is time invariant. and recoprocally
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
It seems as rather surprising that the discussion “what is the notion/phenomenon “Time”?” appeared in this project at all, when the correct and clear answers were given a number of times in this project [in other sections] and in a number of the RG physical questions threads already. Nonetheless here appears something as:
“…For those those who are discussing the time concept, I think that they could profit a lot from reading Piaget's book titled The child's conception of time..”
it seems rather evident that a hope that a “child's conception of time” has some relation to the objective reality seems as some child’s hope also; when, for example, a number of even adult members in this thread write about the time some claims that have no relations to the reality.
Though some other claims here are more adequate, e.g. :
“…First of all, in connection with time, we talk about physical quantities and not about psychological or neurological connections…”
the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Time” indeed exists in the absolutely fundamental “Information” Set, and in the sub-Set “our Universe” correspondingly, absolutely objectively; without any relations to any “psychological or neurological connections”, including even in Universe Time existed and acted billions of years before these “connections” appeared on Earth; but
“… With the time … no one but yourself can ever understand your experience with your office. They are not reproducible. This is different with the spatial assignment. A precisely defined space point is existed by you independently ….Time is not a physical quantity, it is a pure definition…”
again is incorrect. Again, Time is absolutely objective phenomenon, which exists absolutely independently on how many definitions some humans invented. And it is rather similar to the notion/phenomenon “Space”, though there is the difference for humans; in that humans see the spatial sizes/distances by eyes, when don’t see “time”. However there exist very many things in Universe, which humans cannot see, for example atoms, but seems there are very small part of humans think that so atoms don’t exist. As well as seems nobody sought/see till now any human’s thought, including about time, but let’s hope that the RG members here think that the thoughts exist objectively really. Etc.
The notion/phenomenon “Time” is, though, indeed a Meta-mainstream philosophical and so Meta-mainstream scientific one; and so cannot be correctly defined in the mainstream. Thus in the mainstream, besides “child conceptions”, a number of definitions of “Time” exist; including “the definition” of the time /space/spacetime in the SR/GR, where, since the authors of these theories didn’t understand what these phenomena are and so didn’t give their concrete definitions, but attempted to define them by claiming as real famous “fundamental properties” of these phenomena. Quite naturally these properties of some undefined phenomena are no more then some fantasy that have rather indirect relation to the objective reality.
Again, these fundamental Meta-notions/phenomena [and a number of other fundamental Meta-mainstream notions/phenomena] can be, and are, properly defined/rationally understandable in the “The Information as Absolute” conception only:
“Time” is an absolutely fundamental Rule/Possibility [the member of the set “Logos”] that is necessary for any dynamical [changing] object/system of objects in whole absolutely infinite “Information” Set could exist as a dynamical item, i.e. could change.
Thus the time in humans’ theories, if they correct, of course, exists always as two application of the letter “t”: as the Possibility for the dynamical object/system to change, including for the fundamentally dynamical system “Matter”, where all/every material object/sub-system of the objects uninterruptedly changes, that is the dimension of the system’s spacetime. As the Rule, Time establishes that any change cannot be instant, for it be happened is necessary to pass fundamentally non-zero something, what humans call “temporal interval” and the intervals in the theories are also “t”. About Time as a Rule indeed there is the definition
“…Philosophically :
John Archibald Wheeler: " Time is nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once "…”;
though that was said by the writer Rag Cummings in early 1920-th [Wheeler simply repeated Cummings’s thought] and what was much more correct then a huge number of existent mainstream “definitions” of mainstream philosophers and other scientists.
Though Wheeler added to this point quite correctly something as [as I remember] that “Space is nature's way to keep everything from happening all in one spatial point”.
Indeed, again, both absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities act in many points similarly; including, for example, the space in the theories is applied by two ways for what the letter, say, “x” is used as the spatial dimension and as a spatial interval; by another words “Time is Space for changes”.
Note also, that realizations of the these absolutely fundamental notions/phenomena in different dynamical systems are different also, for example now it is unknown what is the spacetime of the fundamentally non-material system “human’s consciousness” and how many dimensions it has. But it is quite correct that this spacetime exists in the absolutely common Spacetime for everything in the “Information” Set. As well as the consciousness’ space is unambiguously fundamentally outside Matter’ 3D space, which is the spatial component of Matter’s [5]4D absolute Euclidian spacetime; where, just specifically to the system “Matter” two Rules/Possibilities “Time” act – the “true time” and the “coordinate time”.
Again, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute
What is Matter’s spacetime see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
Cheers
Cheers
Mathematics is the study of the shape, size and situation.Therefore,in any subject, if in a system , situation is going to change,time will come into play.It may be in different form. As an example, I would like to request the readers to see my work "Role of the principle of relativity..........",where,the special relativistic formulation of the portfolio risk of two security case has been discussed.Here,the variance of the portfolio risk played the role of time.
Regards
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
“…Many scientists consider the physics to be incomplete, as long as they can only explain the behavior of space and time, but not their origin “
it seems as rather evident that the assertions in the quote above are rather strange: it seems evident that if “the origin of space and time” is unknown, then the claims that scientists “can explain the behavior” of these phenomena seems as too bold since has no reasonable ground to be true. It is impossible to understand a behavior of something having no understanding of what is this something.
Including thus this:
“…Physics is not complete, until both can unified, the infinitely dense "singularity" at the center of a black hole, which distorts the space-time structure beyond recognition, or the quantum theory operating at the atomic level with the general relativity theory , which governed in the order of magnitude of planets…”
is rather strange assertion also: it is impossible for sure to say about some “singularities”, “black holes”, etc. in the spacetime, when the author don’t understand – what is the Matter’s spacetime. In such cases simply any the author’s assertion about the spacetime can be, with the probability practically be equal to the unity, something that has no relations to the objective reality. In this example that is the case when the probability is equal to 1 exactly: in the reality the Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” that is formed by the absolutely fundamental Possibilities “Space” and “Time”, where the informational system “Matter” exists and changes. It is impossible to form some “singularities”, “black holes” [etc.; in the GR a lot of other rather strange things in the spacetime can be formed since the author didn’t understand what are space and time], in the emptiness a creation of such things is impossible again quite evidently.
“…Physics will not be complete before it can explain how space and time are derived from something more fundamental….”
That is in some aspects true, but the “derivation of space and time from something more fundamental” is non-sufficient for physics to be complete. Physics is some result of work of something that humans call “human’s consciousness” aimed at the study of something what humans call “Matter”. At that both these notions/phenomena are, as the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” above also, Meta-mainstream philosophical/scientific ones, and so all these notions/phenomena are in the mainstream principally transcendent and so principally cognizable – principally it is unknown what studies of what? At that by unknown in the mainstream [and quite understandable in the “The Information as Absolute” conception] reasons, for some concrete “non-Meta” phenomena/processes in Matter and in the consciousness the consciousness is able, nonetheless to built some indeed adequate models/theories/etc.
Again, the rational knowledge, including rational definitions of the notions/phenomena above, can be obtained in the “The Information as Absolute” conception only, including where the phenomena “Space” and “Time” are the absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities, which are members of the set of other absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities/Quantities [for example “set”, “Change”, “Energy”; rather possibly “Cause”, logical rules, etc.] “Logos”.
The members of the “Logos” set “make something to be some information”[something like any set of Grammar rules in any language] i.e. to be some pattern of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information”; however all these members are some informational patterns also. This situation is paradoxical a little; besides any information cannot be non-existent and so exist always, “in absolutely infinite time interval, which has so no Beginning and no End” as a member of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set; and thus we cannot point out – what was the first? And/or what is the origin of what – “Logos” [with “Space” and “Time”] or Information?
And, relating to
“…This said nobody less than Mark Van Raamsdonk - Professor of Physics of University of British Columbia… This is noticed by Abhay Ashtekar from Pennsylvania State University in University Park…”
again, the understanding of what the fundamental notions/phenomena above are is possible only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception. Thus, though all these notions/phenomena are just the main subjects for philosophical study in a few thousand years already, and in the mainstream philosophy there exist a huge number of “famous” philosophers that wrote/write numerous “brilliant/seminal/legendary…” publications about the ontology of “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, etc., the result is known – there exist a huge number of “explanations” of these phenomena that are different and even opposite, which exist, nonetheless, well simultaneously; since all/every these “explanations” are based on a next and next non-provable/non- disprovable/non-testable initial suggestions/postulates. Including the quoted claims are nothing more then some banal declarations, which can be interesting only for those who wants to know the history of philosophical misconceptions.
So, if you indeed want to understand what the Meta-notions/phenomena above [and not only] are, don’t waste the time on reading of practically always very long mainstream publication [in the mainstream seems a rule acts “the thicker publication the brillianter the author”]; it would be much more useful in this case to read, to attempt to understand, and to ask, if something turns out to be non-understandable, at least the papers that are linked in the SS comment above.
Cheers
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
“…A time defined by man is assumed to be existent…”
in the reality, i.e. in the “The Information as Absolute” conception, there is no problem to assume or not the existence of the phenomenon [in the objective reality]/the notion [in human’s consciousness] “Time”; as well as of the phenomena/notions “Space”, “Matter”, “Consciousness”. It simply fundamentally obligatorily exists. Just as in
“…Of the space can not be assumed the same. It This exists independently of the individual…”
the phenomenon/notion “Time” is quite equally “independent on the individual” as the phenomenon/notion “Space”; both are rather similar absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities that are members of the “Logos” set of the Rules/Possibilities/Quantities, etc. that are fundamentally necessary for any information could exist at all [Space] and change [Space and Time]; when, as that is proven in the conception, all/everything what exists is/are some informational patterns/systems of the patterns only, there isn’t and cannot be something else.
“…As such, it [Space] is not influenced by events…”
Time cannot be influenced by any way by any events since [as Space indeed also] cannot be influenced fundamentally.
Again, as that is just, for example, if somebody writes a text, he must, according to corresponding grammar rule in practically any language, make spatial intervals between words, in other case the text will not be some information, i.e. will be non-understandable; in this case this, utmost common for all languages, grammar rule is simply a next direct realization of the “Space-Rule”. Quite similarly if somebody reads a text, he must, according to corresponding grammar rule in practically any language, make temporal intervals between words, and this utmost common for all languages grammar rule is simply a next direct realization of the “Time-Rule”.
Both, Space and Time as the Rules by no means establish – what spatial/ temporal intervals between “words” must be, the unique requirements are that these intervals [and fundamentally non-zero sizes of the “words” and durations of every state of “words” and “texts” of every changing informational pattern/system] in the Possibilities/ the dimensions “Space” and “Time” must not be equal to zero exactly. Thus, e.g., a writer can write a text by using any non-zero size letters and using any spacing /temporal intervals at reading [and at writing also, of course] the text – nothing happens with these gamma-rules; for both Rules/Possibilities all that is the same.
Thus
“…If we transfer the Heisenberg principle in general, this means that the time is indistinct, blurred if we want to determine the location exactly.…”
that isn’t so also. Again, nothing can happen with either the Rules or the Possibilities “Space” and “Time” when something happens in Matter, they fundamentally cannot be “indistinct”, “blurred”, etc. “Blurred” become be concrete, for example, spatial/temporal positions of concrete material objects, which change their these positions at 4D motion in the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime/empty container because of concrete realizations of the fundamental self-inconsistence of the absolutely fundamental notion/phenomenon “Change” at concrete changes.
And this fundamentally non-zero “blurring” doesn’t differ from fundamentally non-zero sizes of the concrete material objects, besides that it is principally uncertain; however in given concrete informational systems only, in many traits this effect is analogues to the situation when in a computer the state of some running program becomes be uncertain till potentials on the computer’s gates reaches, say, +3 V; and at that .nothing happens with either Space [and with Matter’s space] or Time [and with Matter’s time].
Etc., again more see the SS posts an the links in the posts.
Cheers
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
“…Time exhibits two aspects.
The phenomenon/notions “Time” [and “Space” as well, though] indeed exhibits two fundamental aspects: they are (1) it is the absolutely fundamental Rule that establishes that every change of a state of every changing object/system of objects cannot be instant, i.e. that corresponding process is happening fundamentally during something that humans call “time/temporal interval” that must not be equal to zero exactly, and that between any different states at the changes must be fundamentally non-zero also time intervals; thus corresponding temporal intervals always accompany any/every changes, correspondingly the changes are the motions in (2), i.e. in “Time” as absolutely fundamental Possibility for changes, i.e. in corresponding temporal dimension, totally analogously as when something changes [so every spatial motion is simultaneously the temporal motion] its position in the “Space” as in this Possibility”/dimension.
Though note, that the above about “Time” relates only to the absolutely fundamental and universal, which acts in whole absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, “true time” Rule/Possibility.
In concrete dynamical systems some other rules/possibilities “time” can act, and the example is the uninterruptedly changing informational system “Matter”, where, besides the true time, the additional rule/possibility/dimension “coordinate time” acts, which establishes that corresponding [coordinate] temporal intervals accompany only every changes of internal states of material objects, including when they remain be at rest in the space [thus in Matter the objects move in the coordinate time and true time simultaneously]. Correspondingly Matter’s spacetime is absolute Euclidian [5]4D [= two times, 0-th and 5-th dimensions, and 3D space ] spacetime/empty container.
When
"...(1) Humans perceive time in relation to material entities through phenomena…(2) We assume that material entities possess mind independent dispositions to generate these temporal phenomena…”
that is correct, of course; however only in certain sense, since correctly relate not to the phenomenon “Time” only. Both these points are true relating to any/every other phenomena that are external to the self-aware and having capability to analyze information non-material entity/ [“program”] “human’s consciousness” [including that this point relates to the internal of the consciousness, but non-controlled by “cognizing subroutines”, information about some internal processes in the consciousness herself, though].
And
“If time does not exist then there is no death, transition, passing. Are we, as beings, eternal?”
the Rule/Possibility “Time” has no any “active” relation to the death, transition, passing, eternality of anything, including of humans; in the reality there is no “Chronos”. All these phenomena are only some concrete properties of concrete objects/systems; Time only just establishes that any process, including human’s life, proceeds in an obligatorily non-zero temporal interval; and it is a witness, who without any emotion simply accompanies corresponding processes by the corresponding intervals…
Cheers
Dear Paul Pistea,
If a law is independent of time, is it also,independ of space?
Regards
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
“…Here is a wonderful example: A NASA (information) animation: Astrophysicists cheer "All our dreams have come true"!…The reason for this shooting star of superlatives was the fusion of two more inconceivable dense neutron stars 130 million years ago - a time when Tyrannosaurus Rex still dominated the Earth…”
Indeed the LIGO and Vigra collaborations claimed that they detected some signals on their installations that seems correlate with some gamma-burst on the distance near 130 million light years; and so, of course, in the temporal interval 130 million simply years ago. Indeed 130 million years ago Tyrannosaurus Rex still dominated on the Earth.
[That seems is indeed possible, if the installations have the sensitivities as the collaborations declare. Including that can be indeed some gravitational event, the 4-th fundamental Nature force “Gravity” is rather similar to the other fundamental Nature force, i.e., “EM force” and so, analogously to EM waves rather probable some gravitational waves exist also; but they by any means, fundamentally, cannot be some “ripples of the spacetime”]
Though
“…The results obtained in this case are completely independent of time…”
isn’t, of course correct, any change of anything, including the cosmic events above, always depends on Time since is possible only because of the absolutely fundamental Rule/Possibility “Time” absolutely objectively exists and acts for any changing systems.
And only in time the event above happened and Tyrannosaurus Rex walked on Earth simultaneously. That is evidently another thing, that in the rest these Tyrannosaurus and the event were “completely independent of time” – both of them are event/species that are totally determined by concrete laws in concrete material and living systems; Time by no means determinates anything in any concrete process, it is fundamentally universal Rule/Possibility and for Time all is the same - what and where [in what objects/systems] changes.
However if something changed then this event fundamentally obligatorily is accompanied by corresponding temporal interval; at that Time by no means establishes some “inherent measure of temporal intervals”, it is senseless to speak about some interval value if there was only one change. This sense appears only if more then two changes happened, and so a comparison shows, for example, that one is longer in time then another; in this case – that after the event above happened, till its detection 130 millions of another changes, i.e., Earth rotations about Sun happened.
And all that existed, exists, etc. without any relation – what some minds think about what, including about what is Time…
Cheers
dear Ramesh, every law is independend of that variable which does not appear in the describing formula. while time does not appear in the law of gravity (G=y*M*m/R²), the law is time independent (just because time does NOT explicitely appear in the formula). but this law is space symmetrical because of R².
dear Ramesh, case you want to know if a law is independent of space, you have to look in its describing formula: case in the formula appears Space as a variable, then the law is not space independent. for instance: e=mc² should be space independent as long as space (s) does not appear in the formula, so the theory. BUT: my critical opinion is:: mass takes place, or m=m0/squareroot(1-v²/c²), whereby v=s/t, so indirectly space is meant to be in the formula too. therefore I think that (indirectly) ALL physical variables are somehow involved in one/more law(s), so that none physical law is independent in time, or in space, or in .
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
“The DNA chain is dynamic informational pattern system where important is the sequence of information events rather than time and space”
is there would not be time and space, then simply would not be any informational systems, including DNA; at all. Again, Space and Time are simply
as the Possibilities – they are possibilities to place somewhere, i.e. in space and time, every informational patterns and their [if patterns aren’t fixed, i.e. dynamical] changing states, even when a pattern changes without spatial place, i.e. only internal state s changing;
as the Rules they establish simply that every pattern occupies some non-zero place in the space-possibility and every changing state, including a changing of a spatial position, occupies some non-zero temporal interval in the time-possibility; and that between different patterns must be non-zero spatial intervals and between different states must be non-zero temporal intervals. That’s all; if the intervals will be equal to zero, this pattern will not be some information, i.e. will be non-understandable.
Again the Rules “Space” and “Time” are simply utmost universal grammar rules that exist and act in every language; which act implicitly, and for them it is all the same – who and what text this who writes. However if somebody who wants for his text be understood by some other who, he must execute, what the Grammar establishes. When it is senseless to think – what is more important, the Grammar or what is written.
Cheers
The Newtonian Time was an independent variable. Even in the relativistic theories it is an independent variable for each reference frame. However, if we look at the Lorentz-Einstein Transformations, we see that the times of the two reference frames has a spatial dimension. Only for x=0 are the times become become independent of the spatial dimension. However, for x not equal to zero, the times are dependent on the spatial dimension. In my book, "Musings of a Neurologist" i have gone in detail about this, but here i will briefly present a strange consequence of this dependency on spatial dimension. if we take the transformation equation between t' and t with t' on the left side of the equality, we see that there has to be an x such that t'=0 and beyond this x the t' < 0! In other words, the observer in the Stationary RF will notice that the clocks in the moving RF are moving in reverse!! Thus for the observer in the stationary RF the t' is not an independent variable but is dependent on x. This is the paradox in the STR that for some reason does not seem to bother anyone? thanks.
case one defines that time is motion, it is included in every law even if it does not explicitely appear in the describing formula. nothing in this cosmos could ever be time independend (in other words: somehow is IN in every law, so the law can`t be time independent)
Now a paper with a more detailed consideration in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception of the Space and Time problems is presented. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320775304_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_space_and_time
A rather minor upgrade of the article that relates to implicit and explicit information in the “Information” Set is in http://viXra.org/abs/1711.0238
Cheers
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
Dear VVVVV,
“…Sergey, why two temporal dimensions? We can extend the phase space again and again (if it need), without violating the logic of the dynamic system's translation into itself? This procedure can be done invariantly "long" (i.e., infinitely). Moreover, additional "spatial" degrees of freedom can be included with each extension….”
indeed in physics at elaborating of mechanical many bodies problems it is very convenient to use configuration spaces, when for a number N of bodies the spacetime has 3N at least spatial dimensions, to introduce “phase space/volumes” for states of the system, etc., but all that evidently has no relation to the problem “what is Matter’s spacetime”. And even those people who attempted to discover something fundamental and so invented some “fundamental properties of the spacetime”, as that was in the SR/GR theories, where it is postulated that real Matter’s spacetime is imaginary 4D Minkowski/pseudo Riemannian spaces, what is, of course a fantasy, never stated at that that real Matter’s spacetime has, say 3∙1090 dimensions, or something like.
And the answer on the question what is this spacetime is given here a few times already in comments and in the main links in the comments: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physicshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/320775304_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_space_and_time so more see the links above, when briefly that is:
since, a that von Weizsäcker showed, the informational system “Matter” rather probably is built by using simplest binary logics, when for existence and changing of such systems is necessary to have 3D space, Matter’s spacetime has 3D space;
besides any information cannot be non-existent and so cannot be deleted. Thus a next states of every changing informational pattern/system in the “Information” Set, must not be written in the same place where the previous states is, since that deletes the previous information; and so must be written somewhere else. This “somewhere else” is the absolutely fundamental and universal Possibility “true time”, which is “the 1D space for changing states”, and in which all dynamical elements/systems in the Set place the chains of their changing states, moving by this way in the true time.
Including the dynamical system Matter has the true time [“5-th”] dimension, where all/every material objects, which constantly and always change their states because of the energy conservation law, and Matter as a whole as well, constantly move; and
since to prevent, or, at least to reduce to minimum, the energy losses in the Set outside Matter at interactions of objects in Matter, the logical algorithms, that all every material objects are, are reversible. The reversible processes conflict logically with the true time, which principally is unidirectional, and so Matter’s spacetime has the second temporal, [“0-th”] “the coordinate time”, dimension, which isn’t universal in the Set, and is specific only to Matter and other possibly existent based on reversible processes systems in the Set.
Eventually Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian empty container [in the objective reality, where Matter objectively exists and changes]/ [5]4D Euclidian manifold [in scientific theories, where Matter subjectively is described].
Note, that in the SR/GR there are two times also, “simply time” and “proper time”, when, however, the proper time isn’t a spacetime’s dimension.
And, besides, the important point: every dynamic system, including Matter “uses” only those possible dimensions that relate to independent degrees of freedom at changing of its elements, and nothing else. Thus, in certain sense, that seems as every system’s spacetime “emerges” from the system. However that happens only provided of the fundamental condition: every informational system principally cannot exist without some space and, if it is dynamical, without some spacetime. The absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” always fundamentally obligatorily and objectively act.
Cheers
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
In spite of that the correct and complete definition of the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” seems more then ten times is given here, the animate and endless discussion continues.
And seems that happen because by an rather evident reason: the discussants seems don’t understand the main rule for any discussion could have sense: that is possible only provided correct defining of the main terms/notions that are used at discussion. In other case, the using undefined, and so senseless notions is nothing more then a generating of senseless flaws of words. Nonetheless some people, who “can not live in definitions”, some consciously and even claiming that, others unconsciously, write next and next in fact senseless posts.
That is another thing that correct and complete definitions of the Meta-mainstream notions/phenomena above and necessary at this discussion Meta-notions/phenomena “Matter” and “Consciousness” are impossible in framework of the mainstream philosophy [that is possible only in “The Information as Absolute” conception] and so this thread simply mainly repeat senseless/resultless thousands years discussions in the philosophy. But this fact should force any normal human at least to ask – why that is so? And, besides, knowing that existent “definitions” have some indirect relation to the reality, at least to understand rather clearly, even in such situation, faults of the existent and produced here Space/Time definitions. A couple examples
“…Perhaps the best and most comprehensive overall definition is that offered by Wikipedia: a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of duration of events and the intervals between them…”
this declaration evidently has some sense ONLY IF it is defined/answered on obligatory questions: what is “dimension”? what is “ordering of events”? what are “past”, “present” and “future”? what is “duration of events and intervals between them [so what is difference between “duration” and “interval”] and “by what hell it exists and, moreover, “can be measured” ?”, etc.
and in the mainstream any of the questions above cannot be answered [only some circular considerations are possible], besides some naïve claims that some non-understandable “time” is an appeared by unknown reason human’s consciousness invention, and all above are also some totally products of the consciousness work. At that seems nobody who indeed believes in such definition even doesn’t suspect that here a next question appears – why these “human’s consciousness’s inventions” are adequate, as that the practice shows, to the objective reality?, for which [for the reality] it is totally the same – some consciousness invented something or not and even there exist somewhere some consciousnesses or not.
Another example is famous “Einstein’s definition of time”: “time is what clocks measure”. This definition differs from the case above in that here the notion/action “measure” is linked with the notion/ phenomenon “clocks”, but that changes nothing in the problem. Again, before claiming that it is necessary to define “what are clocks” and “by what reason they “measure just time?”
Just in accordance with the “definition” above the SR/GR are based on the postulates that some “reference frames”, even virtually assigned to any moving in the Matter’s space particle/body, or a “mass”, by using some mystic forces transform the space and time in whole Universe, including “dilate time” in every the spacetime’s point; and further, if a material body “clock” is placed in a spacetime point with “dilated time”, this dilated time, again by using some possibly other mystic force, compels the clock “to show the dilated time”.
However, these seems evidently having no relation to the objective reality postulated “relativistic effects” indeed cannot be proved as they in the reality are, i.e. that all they are simply a fantasy, just because of that in the mainstream there wasn’t [isn’t and principally cannot be] correct definitions of the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”; and till now the SR/GR with all their fantastic inferences are official theories in the mainstream physics.
Again, the correct Space/Time definitions are given in the SS posts and papers linked in the posts, so instead of to produce a next and next senseless items in the endless outside the informational conception above process, it would be much more useful to read the papers and to attempt to understand what indeed happens/proceeds in the reality; if some questions appear – to ask.
Cheers
Dear Sergey, thank you very much for your valuable contribution to my question, it really cleared my concept about the time.
Best Regards
Ashraf
Dear Ashraf,
well, but even if you have understood the concept completely, I will place here some next re-posts from some philosophical project, where the members and readers are mostly non-physicists; so corresponding thread is rather heavily spammed. When, thanks heavens, this thread is compact and possibly some professionals read it…
Cheers
Possibly this re-post from a RG project is relevant to this question
******
“…I once had the opportunity to ask Paul Dirac a question, and that was "What is energy" and his response was "nobody knows"….”
In the mainstream that is indeed so, nobody knows what is “Energy”; the difference between humans is only in that somebodies know that they don’t know, when others think that they know.
However that relates, of course, not only to the notion/phenomenon “Energy”, nobody knows eventually all the rest, for example – what are particles, besides that something that is observed when takes part in some concrete specific interactions is a “particle”; etc.
In the reality the notion/phenomenon “Energy” can be properly defined/understandable only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception and is the absolutely fundamental “Quantity”[which is an element of the set of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, Actions, etc. “Logos” that make any something as being some information] that is necessary to change informational patterns/systems, and it acts at any change.
Energy is always necessary at changes because of the absolutely fundamental “Action” “Change” [which, as Energy, is the element of Logos also] is logically self-inconsistent, since at a change of an object the object’s state is simultaneously former, recent and future states; when they are different by definition, and, besides, such situation is prohibited by the absolutely fundamental law: any information cannot be non-existent and so the 3 states of information above cannot exist in the same place simultaneously.
The last [“simultaneously”] relates to third necessary absolutely fundamental component at changes, to the Rule/Possibility “Time” [and “Space”, of course, since any information cannot exist at all without some space], which as the Rule establishes that to execute the law above all states above must be separated non-zero temporal intervals; and as the Possibility is realized in concrete cases as temporal dimensions in concrete spacetimes; “the Possibility “Time” is the space of changing states”.
The second payment that appears at any change – on the real temporal intervals between changes any changing pattern/system becomes by fundamentally uncertain in concrete case; what was proven by Zeno 2500 years ago and just therefore the QM exists.
Thus the more energy is applied at a change, the lesser the uncertainty.
That is common universal law(s). In concrete cases this point becomes be more clear, utmost important in practice case – changes in the informational system “Matter”, which is rather simple logical system that is based on seems simplest binary logic and rigorously executed set of a number of logical rules and links. In this case energy is applied in completely universal way and so can be effectively defined, as some unknown, but useful parameter of the processes: at any interaction that is a sum of elementary interactions, every elementary interactions happens by the condition that ΔEΔt=ћ, at that, seems, the information changes on one bit.
An example: in principle there can be any small energy values used in concrete changes, for example at radiating of extremely low energy photons [say, continuous spectrum], but corresponding photons will have extremely long wave length and will be radiated extremely long time interval.
As well as at any changing of the non-material informational system “human’s consciousness”, for example, when a next though appears, obligatorily some energy is spent; that is another thing, that in this case we don’t know analogues of the relation above. Besides here is the important problem: different thoughts are different by senses and the senses’ values, there can be false and erroneous thought, etc. Thus the problem appears – depends or not the energy value on the senses, etc.?
Including a sense can be at producing some senseless information, what, for example, could be in the case with the paper http://www.nature.com/news/theoretical-physics-the-origins-of-space-and-time-1.13613
, which MMMMLLLL recommends in a few posts already. The paper is practically absolutely senseless, but if the author understood what he writes, that would be a special deliberate process, etc.
Cheers
as time is defined to be motion in space, it cannot be independent: every law of physics is time and space depending (even if indirectly). otherwise how could one operate derivatives aso.
Your question is " Then we use the great theorems of Lapalace, Fourier, and Lyapunov to analyze and study these systems. Is there any other formulation that does not assume the independence of time. "
Yes the "fractional integration" coming from Riemann-Liouville and so the fractional derivation of order 1/2 is a very good mathematical concept to study this problem (in particular the brownien concept).
I wanted that Shevchenko stop.
The problem of “dependence/independence of time” and of “formulation that does not assume the independence of time” has no direct relations to any mathematical theorems or “fractional integrations/derivations”. All mathematical tools are some abstract products of non-material human’s consciousness, that only can be used at solving of some corresponding specific problems, with which the consciousness meet at attempts to construct some theories and models being adequate to the objective [in Nature sciences and technology first of all – to the material reality] reality.
And the mathematical tools above can be applied only in concrete peculiar cases either adequately or not; nothing more.
However to apply the tools adequately indeed is necessary to understand adequately – what are utmost widely used in sciences and technology notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”.
For example, if somebody characterizes a spatial motion of a body, he writes that its speed is v=Δx/Δt. With “Δx” seems as there is no problem – the somebody sees how the body moved from point A to pint B on a distance Δx.
But what is “Δt”, which humans don’t see, and how and from where that appeared?
On these questions humans hadn’t “observable” answers, and so usually didn’t [and many people don’t till now] understand what is “Time”. Again, really they didn’t/don’t know what is “Space” also, but the fact that motion in space is visible, makes in humans an “convincing” illusion that they understand.
Thus, for example, to use the variable “t” Newton postulated that the time is:
“…Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external [the bold is SS's], and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time”
The claim that the time “flows equably without regard to anything external” has no grounds, explanations, etc. – what that means and why that is so, etc. – in the definition above, however it turned out to be quite adequate to the objective reality at small spatial speeds. This definition is the base of all mechanics of interactions of bodies with not large energies/momentums; where, again, Newton’s time flows equably without regard to anything;
including without regard to “theorems of Lapalace, Fourier, and Lyapunov”, something “coming from Riemann-Liouville”, etc.
A next time, the correct definition of the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” can be [and are] given in the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute
only: that are absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities, which are absolutely necessary for every information could exist [“Space”] and, if an informational pattern/system can change potentially and has some energy to realize the potential, could change. When nothing else exists besides some informational patterns/systems that are elements of the absolutely fundamental “Information” Set.
In the second [“dynamical”] case concrete patterns/systems exist and change in concrete “spacetimes”, where different spatial and temporal possibilities are realized as “the spacetimes’ dimensions”. Including, for example, the dynamical systems “Matter” and “Consciousness” exist and change in their peculiar concrete different spacetimes also. And in every case concrete space/spacetimes exist absolutely objectively really.
Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [since is the possibility to “use” by material objects utmost fundamental degrees of freedom at changing of every material object] [5]4D Euclidian empty container [in the objective reality]/ [5]4D Euclidian manifold [in scientific theories]. Practically for sure there exist also some “quantum mechanical” [unknown now] spatial [and possibly temporal] dimensions, but the energies of processes on macro and cosmic levels are so large, that this fact is inessential in most practical cases.
We know nothing what is the human’s consciousness’s spacetime, besides that it operates obligatorily under the Rule “Time” and so has the common with Matter’s spacetime the 5-th [“true time”] dimension; and that with a rather large probability, the theorems of Lapalace, Fourier, and Lyapunov, something from Riemann-Liouville aren’t applicable in this spacetime.
More, including why “Newton’s time”, which is some ad hoc mystic phenomenon that has, besides, principally incorrect definition [“time” doesn’t “flow from its own nature” fundamentally], turns out to be, nonetheless, adequate to the objective reality, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
Cheers
dear Sergey, what about variation in time, derivatives? what about Planck-time? what about uncertainty of Energy versus Time? what about acceleration: d²t? aso...
Dear Michel, thank you very much, yes this is what I meant, for example the analysis of the time delay systems in the s-domain leads to the same results with the transcendence terms. The same with Fourier analysis. I will try to find my answer with the "Fractional Integration". Best Regards Ashraf
Thanks Ashraf, there exist also an other fractional integration, defined by Weirstrass, one integral integration is good for Fourier transform, the other is good for Laplace Transform.
Dear Paul,
“…what about variation in time, derivatives?… what about acceleration: d²t”
in practice on Earth, and if in a frame bodies and particles move with small speeds, there is no problems with temporal derivatives; as that humans do, solving mechanical tasks seems soon 400 years already.
Though Newton’s postulate that “time flow from its own nature” is ontologically fundamentally incorrect, in the reality time “indeed flows”, because of Time as the Rule establishes that, because of the absolutely fundamental law that any information cannot be non-existent, if some informational pattern is changed, then its new state cannot fundamentally “be written” in the same spacetime place, where the previous state was written, and so erase the previous state. Time as the Possibility just provides, be realized as a spacetime dimension, the possibility to write the next information in a different spacetime place; at that between corresponding spacetime places, as that the Rule “Time” establishes, always is some non-zero “time interval”, “Δt”.
Thus if something changes, every changes are fundamentally obligatorily accompanied by some corresponding time intervals, and thus at every change the changing object moves in the temporal dimension on corresponding Δt.
The Rule “Time” by no means establishes – what the intervals must be, the unique requirement is Δt≠0, and so there aren’t any measures, units, etc., which are determined “from time’s own nature”.
It is senseless to say about concrete “time interval value/[duration]” if only one change happens, however if there are more then one change happen in some object/system, then the possibility of comparison of the durations between corresponding changes of sates of different objects or different states of an object appears.
Every material object/system of the objects, and so the system “Matter” as a whole, a next time, constantly change their states because of the energy conservation law [why because of energy – see SS posts above], and so constantly move along the [“true”] temporal axis of the Matter’s spacetime.
Besides, since the informational system/ a huge set of automata that are united by the universal Nature force “Gravity” in some system, i.e. the system “Matter” operates with highly standardized frequency and fundamental elementary step at changes in the space are identical also, the corresponding [true] time interval constantly and uniformly increases, or “time flows equably”, from the Beginning, as that Newton postulated.
Correspondingly, if somebody don’t take too much attention on the ontology, and if the speeds in some task aren’t large, he can use Newton mechanics with all possible derivatives without problems with the adequacy of the results/inferences to the objective reality.
However when the speeds of the objects are large, the simple scheme above becomes be complicated, and the ontology becomes by essential.
First of all, the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime is “determined” by the utmost fundamental degrees of freedom at the in depth changes of material objects, i.e. bodies, particles and fields; and so this spacetime is absolute. Just therefore, as that the astronomy shows, the laws in Matter, and the objects as well, are the same at least along last ten billions of years. Moreover, from the claim that the absolute Matter’s spacetime doesn’t exist and that all inertial reference frames are totally equivalent and legitimate, as that is postulated in the relativity theories, any number of evidently absurd consequences directly and unambiguously follow. Any material object cannot fundamentally transform this absolute spacetime, including the spacetime fundamentally cannot be “dilated”, “contracted”, etc. by something moving and cannot be “bend” by some masses, in the spacetime there cannot by any “holes”, “foams”, “bubbles”, etc. The spacetime’s points cannot form some “causal sets”, it cannot be “granulated” [see the link to some Nature paper in the SS post above], etc..
“…what about Planck-time?…”
However it seems as very rational to suggest that the system of some automata “Matter” exist on some dense 4D regular matrix/lattice of some 4D fundamental binary logical elements (FLE); on some 4D “Aether”, where the particles and so further systems of the particles, i.e. bodies, galaxies, etc. are some disturbances of the lattice. As well as it seems as rather plausible to suggest that the spatial sizes of the fundamental informational patterns “FLE” are identical and equal to the Planck length, when every “flip” of FLE proceeds in the Planck time; thus the 4D speeds [if the temporal dimension has the metric “ct”] of constantly changing material objects is equal to the speed of light. Besides the 4D motion of the objects is “step by step”, where steps are equal to the Planck length. However, again, these finite steps are the steps in the spacetime, they aren’t some “steps of the spacetime”. An analogue: in a computer transistors in a microscheme switch each other when be placed with, say, technological steps 20 microns, however from that by no means follow that when compute works, the Matter’s spacetime is granulated with the step 20 microns.
“…what about uncertainty of Energy versus Time?…”
that is answered already in the SS posts above in this thread.
A next time, the consideration above is an first approximation, the reality is more complex, first of all in Matter’s spacetime two rules/possibilities “time” act, so more see the SS posts and papers that are linked in the posts.
Cheers
dear Sergey, in my opinion in cosmos there is space and motion. time is motion: that`s the definiotion of time (depending on variation of space and on variation of variation of space). I rather would first define (what time is).
“…Time seems to exist as Entropy in every form…”
the absolutely fundamental Rule/Possibility “Time”, in both her functions, i.e. as the Rule and as the Possibility has no relation to specific processes in any dynamical object/system of objects, including to specific processes “Entropy” in concrete system “Matter”, it controls only the absolutely universal phenomenon “a change”. Including as the Rule it establishes [because of the impossibility of non-existence of every information law] that every change is fundamentally obligatorily accompanied by some temporal “true time” interval; nothing more.
Since every material objects and Matter as a whole uninterruptedly [but non-continuously] change their states from the Beginning because of the energy conservation law, the time interval that accompanies these changes indeed uninterruptedly increases; or, by another words, in Matter some “arrow of time” indeed exists.
However, again, this arrow of time is fundamentally “passive”, it totally determined by only Matter’s laws, and has, at that, no relation to “Entropy” phenomenon in Matter. Matter only evolves from a given state into the next, mostly that can appear with maximal probability, state. The deterministic processes by no means differ in this sense from stochastic ones, simply in such cases the probability of next states is equal to 0.9999999….
And when, say, cars on Earth heat the atmosphere and Cosmos increasing the Matter’s entropy during, say, a year, and at that Earth deterministically makes a next rotation around Earth, the Matter’s time interval from the Beginning increases on one year, including that could be so in the case when there weren’t the cars; and even if all processes in Matter would be totally deterministic.
As well as, again, the true time interval increases, including at all processes in Matter, always, including in the both processes, when entropy of something either increases or decreases. Moreover, since at the “Heat Death of Universe”, even if that is possible, nothing happens with elementary particles, atoms, etc., which will continue to change uninterruptedly their internal states, the Matter’s “flow and arrow of time” will remain just the same as they are now.
Note, besides, that since practically all Matter consists of the “substance”, when the quantity of the “antisubstance” is negligible, including everything on Earth and humans bodies, the coordinate time intervals, only which humans now observe and measure, have the same direction as the Matter’s
[unknown now, though it is possible to know, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible ]
true time intervals.
Moreover, by at least 3 reasons [the very small 4 π asymmetry of: the CMB radiation, intensity and spectrums of the cosmic rays, and practically absent difference of radiation spectrums in cosmic objects, i.e. stars, galaxies, etc. on distances of billions of light years] it seems that the absolute Earth spatial speed is rather small,
Given the number of replies to the question related to Time is proof of it's mystery and our fascination about it. It is abstract unlike space and though our intuition tells us that it must be something real, yet we find that whenever we try to "capture" it and make it observable and real, we find ourselves questioning as to whether what we are observing is actually the exact same abstract, intuitive Time we feel. The concept of time is extremely important to us. It helped us to have another intuitive concept called causality. This proved to be extremely helpful in our survival as a species and in our evolution by joining two events so that we could predict one by encountering the other. From a neurological point of view, time is an invention of the temporal lobes to put in order the events we experience. We know this because sometimes the temporal lobes falter and we experience conditions such as deja' vu and jamais' vu. we also sometimes introduce false memories in the narrative in order to satisfy our concept of causality. at other times we wipe out actual events to achieve the same goal. our temporal lobes like to have a smooth and consistent narrative of our experiences. This is the reason we become uncomfortable with quantum physical phenomenon where causality and time are violated. we have an electron change it's state instantaneously and we have no idea as to when the photon was generated, thus breaking causality. the photon may have been generated first which then lead to the change in the state of the electron or vice versa. when we cannot speak about Time we also cannot talk about Causality. Time is like the net of latitudes and longitudes we cover our world in order to find our position on it. Our temporal lobes are doing the same thing to organize our experiences so that we can survive and evolve while competing with the rest of the biosphere. thanks.
“…the number of replies to the question related to Time is proof of it's mystery and our fascination about it. It is abstract unlike space…”
the notion/phenomenon “Space” is absolutely equally “mysterious and abstract” as the notion/phenomenon “Time”, that is clear to anybody who indeed attempted to understand – what these notions/phenomena are.
As well as the temporal effects are observable by humans practically equally as humans observe the spatial effects, for example spatial distances; it is necessary only to understand a couple of points: (i) - not all what human’s eyes see really objectively exist, there are a many cases of illusions; including at “seeing of the distances”; and (ii) if a human doesn’t see something, from that by no means follows that this something doesn’t exist; simply in some cases it is necessary to use additionally corresponding interpretations, if they are correct, of course.
In the “Time” case it is necessary to understand, for example, that anybody never sees something “now”. Even when he sees on a PC screen on a distance, say, 30 cm, he sees the screen as it was in the past 10-11s ago. If he sees on sky, he sees on stars as they were, including, up to thousands of years ago; if he sees in a telescope, he sees a huge number of stars, galaxies, etc., as they were up to billions of years ago.
If, at that, he think that, because of
“time is an invention of the temporal lobes to put in order the events we experience”,
these temporal lobes have put the cosmic objects just in the observed order, such thought seems as rather strange. As well as this thought seems as rather strange in any other case, though; simply not so evidently, but that becomes be clear only for somebodies who indeed attempt to understand – what this thought claims.
Nonetheless the claims that the phenomenon “Time” is some “consciousness’s invention” that “puts in order” , “labels”, etc. events in Nature appear next and next time.
That isn’t too surprising, however, the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” indeed are Meta-mainstream notions/phenomena, and so they cannot be properly defined/rationally understandable outside the “The Information as Absolute” conception.
But in this conception correct and rather simple definitions are given rather long time ago; they exist in the corresponding papers that are linked and commented in a number of SS posts on the RG, including in this thread, first of all https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute
and . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320775304_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_space_and_time ;
more in detail about the realization of “Space” and “Time” in concrete informational system “Matter” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
Thus for those who indeed wants to understand what “Space” and “Time” are, it would be useful not to write here a next unreal versions of the definitions, but to read the papers and the comments, including here.
All what is necessary at that is an ability to think logically and non-standardly; provided that, the “Space” and “Time” concepts are quite understandable.
And after the reading nothing wrong will happen with those who will understand…
Cheers
Time is one of the 7 base quantities in the international system of measurement (SI) and its base unit is the second. Another base quantity is length and its base unit (the metre) is defined in terms of time. Ambiguity creeps in when the notion of 'time' is used as a shorthand for time interval, time-of-day or timescale
Time itself does not exist. There is only movement. The concept of Time makes it possible to compare different movements. All mayors, except Time, has standards of comparison. All clocks compare only movements. The absolute Time is characteristic of Universe expansion rate.
dear Igaitis, case time is movement (in my opinion too) it IS (exists) as motion (and, ergo, it is at least 2-dimensional).
Dear Paul, I agree. The Present has 2 dimensions. Generally, there are 3 dimensions of Time: one is in the direction from Past to Future and two dimensions of Present. The Past does not exist anymore. The Future is not yet. Active is only Present.
More in article: "Pioneer Anomaly and Dimensions of Time"
We may define time in two ways: one absolute that is related to immaterialistic part of our Universe and is related to periodic phenomena like electromagnetic waves that are independent of space, and the other related to materialistic part and is related to movement of physical entities (e.g. dx2+dy2+dz2=cdt2) in space.
The number of independent variables of immaterialistic part are three (we may call them time 1,2 and 3, or otherwise) just as the number of independent variables of materialistic part (x.y and z). In other words due to Universe-Duality, Universe is consisted by two incompatible "worlds"/parts: the materialistic that we can grasp where "time" is dependent of space and the immaterialistic where "space" is dependent of time.
PS: the above equation reveals that time is NOT an independent variable.
Dear, Ioan
According your theory there are number of questions:
- Is there evidence of immaterialistic part of Universe?
- What is the Time?
- What is the Space?
To indeed undrestand what is “Time” [and “Space”, though] it would be useful to read two last SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now#view=5c0bb1a9d7141b7f107bb74b ;
and papers that are linked in the posts.
Cheers
Dear Ilgaitis,
We used to call it spiritual, intellectual, metaphysical, ..., world.
This part of reality is part of our Universe as the "physical world" is. We have not the right to exclude it from Natural sciences because doing so will never get any sense of basic sectors of current Physics, like QM.
Dear Ioan, I agree that said world is part of Natural sciences. Physics too is only part, like biology, chemistry, psychology, etc. Physics nothing to do with spiritual, intellectual, metaphysical, etc., questions. It is the field of philosophy. Difficulties of contemporary physics is based on incorrect understanding of gravity, space and time.
Dear, Sergey
I read all your posts. It is not a physics. It is philosophy of metaphysics.
I disagree with your interpretation of information. Information does not exist independently. The information arise in the mind as consequences of interaction between object and observer.
For example. My cat sleeps on the encyclopedia of physics. Is here any information for cat? No.
Is here any information for my? No. I get information when I start reading. For a person who can not read it is just a waste paper. There is only paper smeared with colour.
In Nature is only properties. The observer transforms properties to information.
as time is movement we have to involve variation of space (1st derivative) and variation of variation of space (2nd derivative), ergo: 2 dimensions (at least)
Dear, Ilgaitis
“…I read all your posts. ..”
- it seems as rather probable that you didn’t read “all [SS’s] posts”; and, besides, that
“…It is not a physics. It is philosophy of metaphysics. …”
is rather strange claim. Metaphysics is the philosophical branch and so there cannot be some “philosophy of metaphysics”.
However that is some minor fault, much more important the other claim is, which, in fact, follows from the quote above: that the physics isn’t, or at least can exist without, metaphysics.
This claim is wrong principally, indeed physics cannot exist without metaphysics; in this thread, for example without rational enough understanding of absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”. A seems classical now example is the relativity theories, where to this phenomena rather strange “fundamental properties” are prescribed and postulated in the theories; what happened just because of the authors of the theories didn’t understand what these phenomena “metaphysically” are.
Though the quoted claim is, in fact, the same as other, and rather popular among some scientists claim: “science doesn’t answers on the question “Why that is/proceeds, science only answer on the questions “How that is/proceeds”.
This popular claim is fundamentally wrong. The science principally differs from other humans’ practice just in that indeed science has its sense and it indeed develops, only having as main aim obtaining new results at more and more deeper explaining of Nature. And in every case indeed new results have appeared in science only as answers on the question “Why that is so?”
Just because of the claim above is popular, in physics the situation remains, when the “spacetime physics”, from which follow any number of meaningless logical and physical consequences, is claimed as the scientific theory;
and just so, a next example, the physics-2018 [practically any other science, though] practically doesn’t differ from the physics-1980
Nothing indeed new appeared in last 40 years, when pages of a huge .number of official scientific journals, etc., are filled by publications that answer on the question “How?”
“…I disagree with your interpretation of information…”
yeah, you didn’t understand what is the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information”.
So, for example this quote is a next example of the misunderstanding above
“…Information does not exist independently. The information arise in the mind as consequences of interaction between object and observer. …”, etc.…”
-without understanding what is “Information” that is nothing more then some ungrounded bare declaration, from which by no means follows – why information “doesn’t exist independently”? Why/how “information arise” somewhere, including in “mind” [and if arises only in “mind”, then why/how that happen just in “mind”], etc.
A next time, to understand what is Information and to obtain rational answers on a number of questions “Why?” in the science, see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
Dear all,
In Newton's era Physics was called "Natural Philosophy" although it was more Physics than today's (Mathematical) Physics. I would easily argue that even classical Philosophy (like Spinoza, Kant, Leibniz, ...) is more Physics than some aspects of Physics today.
" My cat sleeps on the encyclopedia of physics." : is full of information about cat. Your cat is not hunting rats now, it is in a position that you can observe it, it is alone, it is sleeping, ... . All these are information (and much more) is involved in the above sentence. Properties are just information that an observer has about an entity.This can be get either by straight observation of the object, or by mind-interpretation of a set of different information. Nature is information spread within spacetime. Whether an information has any other physical resemblance is a great quest that nobody can ever answer.
Time is NOT movement, although we perceive its change through movement. It is an fundamental variable that, in a sense its value, depends on space (only because we (thing) can grasp space more easily than time).
Physics/Metaphysics/Philosophy/... is just and only Physics. I would exaggerate, even more, to argue that whole Science is just Physics ( Physics is the science that studies matter (and all its aspects) and its motion and behavior through space and time). .
Dear, Sergey
If you yourself know what information is, then you have written it briefly and clearly.
I examine your article, but cannot found any consistent definition. There are only number of disputable properties. Basic (Property I1, Property I2) are wrong:
Property I1. Any information is objective and doesn’t require existence of any “sentient being” to exist.
Therefore disinformation which is in the any newspaper is true (objective). When I walk with a dog, I see that he smells a lot, but I have nothing. For dog here's a lot of information, but for me nothing. So for information one should have a sensitive nose. Only then does the property (smell) turn into information.
Property I2. Information can exist at least in two possible modes: 1) “fixed information”, e.g. a picture, a computer code listing, and 2) “dynamic information”, a changing picture, an execution of a program code in computer, etc.
Physically in the computer is nothing of information. There are only electric and magnetic fields. The information arises from interpretation of said fields. The low level of voltage is accepted as logic “0”, but high level as logic “1”. For interpretation is used a program, which converts set of 0 and 1 to pixels on the screen of monitor. As result on screen is displayed set of pixels. It is not information. My mind converts said pixels to symbols and, when I read its, I get information.
… the definitions and properties above are always true.
This statement is wrong (see above).
I'm sorry to spend so much time analysing your concept of information. It is unnecessary for physics. Sorry.
Dear Paul, I agree. The global (absolute) Time is characteristic of accelerating Universe’s expansion rate.
Global time depends on space as much as (global) space depends on time. They are both parts of the same spacetime construction, on which the Present moment is moving transfering with it, its properties from the Past to the Future. However, acceleration depends on velocity that itself depends on space and time. It is irrational to say that time depends on velocity or acceleration that themselves depend on time.
Universe's acceleration depends on (time and) space as result of spacetime construction (and not the opposite). That's why the "geometrical/topological" model of Universe(spacetime) is of principal importance.
Dear Ioan,
It is free imagination that there are independent Space, Time and therefore Spacetime. Opposite meaning is: Space and Time itself does not exist. There are only force field (synonym of Space). There is not necessary Spacetime for explanation of basic puzzles of contemporary physics.
Dear all,
Please let me remind, to all of us, some basic mathematical knowledge we learned back to our old good school-days. This may help to clarify what we mean when we declare a variable as “independent” or “dependent”.
An equation that relates four variables (x, y, z and t),
like: f(x2)+f(y2)+f(z2)+f(t2)=0
does not indicate which, of the variables, are the independent and which the dependent one. It just indicates that, we can consider three of them as independent and the fourth one as the dependent on the other three. Which one is considered as the dependent one, is a matter of conviction among interlocutors. Any three of them could be considered as the independent ones (e.g. x, y and t).
Furthermore, if there is also the relation: v=a*x + b*y, where a and b are constants, then the variable v may take the position (as the depended on the others three or independent) of any variable that is in the last relation (x or y). So, we may consider — after conviction — as the three independent variables:
1) x, y and z, or
2) t, y and z, or
3) x, t and z, or
4) x, y and t, or
5) v, y and z, or
6) x, v, and z, or
7) t, v, and z, or
8) v, y and t, or finally
9) x, v and t.
(It is a good exercise during a break from our work on advanced calculus.)
I thought all these were common knowledge for anyone, but it seems I was wrong.
From physical point of view the independent means that it cannot be affected by other physical quantities, For example, in the time you moves from womb to tomb. It is impossible to move back. Mathematically on the paper you can do everything.
Independent is only mass of Universe. The Space and Time are dependent on mass of Universe. According energy conservation law the mass of Universe is constant.
Dear, Ilgaitis
“…If you yourself know what information is, then you have written it briefly and clearly.
I examine your article, but cannot found any consistent definition.….”
A “clearness” of something for somebody depends of this somebody. Brief and clear definition of the phenomenon/notion “Information” follows from the paper’s text: Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. [in the “The Information as Absolute” conception “Logos” set]”.
However, to understand this definition is necessary not only to read, but also to understand what has been read and “examined”.
Including, e.g.,
“…Basic (Property I1, Property I2) are wrong:
Property I1. Any information is objective and doesn’t require existence of any “sentient being” to exist.… When I walk with a dog….”
That is indeed a bit correct remark, the Property I1 is formulated a little blurry yet in 2007, when in next years the first few pages of the paper-2007 in next upgraded versions simply were repeated. More clear version would be, e.g., “Property I1. Phenomenon “Information” is objective and doesn’t require existence of any “sentient being” to exist”. Though the paper’s version doesn’t differ semantically from this version.
Including when somebody sentient walks with his dog, both informational systems, “somebody” and “dog”, exist objectively in the Set, and for their existence there is no necessity for any “sentient being” to be existent. Besides that to a next sentient being could appear it is necessary some actions of some sentient beings before, but that is simply a concrete property of concrete informational systems “sentient beings on Earth”.
“…Property I2. Information can exist at least in two possible modes: 1) “fixed information”, e.g. a picture, a computer code listing, and 2) “dynamic information”, a changing picture, an execution of a program code in computer, etc.
Physically in the computer is nothing of information….”
Property I2 is quite correct, information in computer is information; including, relating to that
“…There are only electric and magnetic fields. The information arises from interpretation of said fields. The low level of voltage is accepted as logic “0”, but high level as logic “1”…”
All/every material fields, including EM ones, and all/every other material objects as well, are nothing else then some informational patterns/systems. Just this fact allows/determines that, though in computers simultaneously a number of fundamentally different informational processes proceed, i.e. physical processes [including with EM fields], and processing of information that is determined by humans, starting from the computers’ architecture, further software, and further concrete programs, these processes can be realized; and computers well process of the humans’ information . Outside the conception this fact isn’t understandable; besides for some people, though, who simply don’t know that this problem exists.
Only because above, for example non-sentient computers are constantly exchanging by humans created information in the Web, including when this information in most cases has no any relation to the EM fields, and so on monitors some pixels that your “mind converts said pixels to symbols and, when you read its, you get information” appear.
“…I'm sorry to spend so much time analysing your concept of information…”
Sorry, but that is your totally private problem only, which isn’t interesting to somebody else; it doesn’t require some comments; as well as your claim that
“…It is unnecessary for physics ….”
If you indeed think so, that is a next your private problem (if you are a physicist, of course) also.
However, since that relates to the “The Information as Absolute” conception, that seems as worthwhile to be commented; not for only for you, though. The conception is the base of any science; the existent version, because of the authors are physicists, is the base mostly and concretely for physics [though a number of the scientific problems that relate to the phenomenon “Consciousness” are essentially clarified also, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720], where yet now it clarifies a number of fundamental problems, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494.
It would be useful to read the last SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_history_behind_discovery_of_plancks_constant?view=5b4e18655801f22f7b07e862 and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_interpretations_of_Planck_length?view=5b1bf0ebeb87033da0495795 also, where some of such problems are briefly listed.
Cheers
Dear Ilgaitis,
According to your physical point of view only God may be independent. Mass of Universe is not certain that does not alter with time. Mass of observable Universe certainly decreases due to accelerating Universe expansion, while mass of entire Universe should be infinite as entire Universe is considered infinite and its mass is isotropically distributed. Infinite is by no means stable.
" Mathematically on the paper you can do everything. " That's why, not only, cosmology is close to mythopoeia.
a law of physics is time invariant if time does NOT appear in the describing formula! e.g. while time does not appear in G=gmM/R² newton`s law is time independent. laws which include time are not time independent. case time itself is defined (for instance) to be T(x,y) it depends on x and y.
In Newton's law of gravity: F=gmM/R2, if density of m is ρ and its volume is V, the relation becomes: F=gρVM/R2.
Does F dependents on ρ (or on V)?
Sometimes (most of the times), thinks are more complicated than they seem to be.
P.S.: Usually, time is defined as clock's measurements. Are these clock's measurements(time) independent of ??? (it dependents on what ??? is)
de facto all physical laws must depend on time (even when indirectly), because time is motion. that`s why I claim: entire physics must be revised; all terms must be expressed by functionals and the distributions theory is the right one to operate with, while it is valid in singularities too
Besides the SS post above to answer on this thread’s question see the last SS posts in the thread also
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Spacetime_how_does_space_time_work ,
and in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_particulate
Cheers
The SS post in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_dimension_relate_to_cosmogenesis
is relevant/useful for this thread.
Cheers
Hello Ashraf,
There are two papers at OSF Preprints that report the discovery of the intrinsic nature of time. One paper is mostly about the discovery itself, and the other paper is a description of time with comments about the role of time in the universe.
Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Identification of the Intrinsic Nature of Time.” OSF Preprints. July 26. osf.io/gqxjy.
https://osf.io/gqxjy
Vesterby, Vincent. 2019. “The Basis of Time in the Universe.” OSF Preprints. July 24. osf.io/q4ntk.
https://osf.io/q4ntk
People have been wondering about the nature of time for thousands of years. There have always been the questions:
What is time?
Why does time occur?
Why does time have the specific qualities that it has?
No one has ever been able to provide realistic answers to these questions. Because no one knew what time was, all the proposed answers were speculative, just guesses.
These two papers are not speculative. Nor do they provide a definition of time. They are descriptions of the nature of time and its role in the universe, and thus provide the answers to the three questions.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics