Panagiotis Michael Mougoyannis,
I suggest an indirect answer to this question of yours. See, for example, the following question:
"Who can tell what happens at the edge of the universe?"
In order to answer this question, we have been discussing the anisotropy in the universe, Doppler effect, etc.; and if you read the following closely, you may get a good manner of thinking on time:
Why not take into consideration also the following commonsense but rationally acceptable (true) points to ponder?
There are gravitational coalescences within the universe, between a star and its planets, between stars, between galaxies, between clusters of galaxies, etc. In that case, we have the following commonsense-wise acceptable scenario:
1. SUPPOSE THE UNIVERSE IS OF FINITE CONTENT:
Then there will be only a finite number of local universes in it; and each will form gravitational coalescence with some others in the vicinity, and finally, all of them will be seen to be together in one gravitational conglomeration.
Could you please try and conclude anything further about this sort of a universe: of its origin, evolution, end, etc? Please do not accuse me of being of any conclusion. I am asking you all....
2. IF THE COSMOS IS OF INFINITE CONTENT:
Then, at any given moment, there will be an infinite number of finite-content universes. Each of these will naturally coalesce gravitationally with a finite number of others, and this effect will only widen in the course of time into the future. Here, each such coalescence can be deemed to possess a proper time scale of its own. That is, causal connection between universes can give temporal connection too.
This time scale will widen as the content of each such local universe of universes widens its content by furthering the breadth of its proper gravitational coalescence formation by attracting and being attracted to other universes.
(I admit that gravitation may be taken mathematically as spacetime curvature. But what exist out there are not the curvature but the curving matter-energy formations, in which gravitation too should form part. After all, gravitation is not a vacuous magical power! Hence, spacetime curvature is not a vacuous mathematical effect; it is a physical effect in actual existents.)
But at any given time there can only be finite-content gravitational coalescences. And, by assumption under 2, there is an infinite number of universes within the cosmos. In this case, will there be further cosmological questions to answer?
I am just asking, I do not posit solutions here about the origin, evolution, and end of the gravitational coalescences of local universes. IF ANYONE OF YOU HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE SUGGEST.
I BELIEVE THIS IS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AT THE EDGES OF THE LOCAL UNIVERSES IN ANY GIVEN FINITE VICINITY OF EACH UNIVERSE.
But if you insist that we have no proofs for the existence of an infinite number of universes, then choose a finite number of them and be happy about it!
But please note: I did not say here anything irrational, and hence, I said nothing prospectively unscientific. For some this too may be unscientific -- in which case, what is prospectively scientific is for them unscientific, and their definition of science would naturally be: "The rational study of whatever we can experiment with".
I believe it to be too poor a definition. All of you have all the rights to hold the other definition or any other!
A natural sequence of events. It proceeds on the whole toward increased entropy.
My preferred definition continues to be that of Aristotle. He says:
“For this is time: (a) the number of movement (b) according to the before and after”, (Aristotle, Physics IV, 11, 219b1-2).
An example for (a): On the atomic clocks we use nowadays, we measure how many times an atom under radiation jumps from one energy level to another. 9,192,631,770 jumps of a Cesium atom make up a second; 551,557,906,200 make up a minute, and 2,757,789,531,000 make five minutes. So time is defined by a number of movement(s) that have occurred or will occur.
An example for (b): When someone asks us, what the time is, we say for example: “five to two” (= five before two) or “five past two” (= five after two). So time is measured according to the before and after.
Hallo, in my opinion Eckhardt Tolle gives great answers to this question. Also Kant with "apriori" of space and time - as a foundation of human mind experience has well formulated ideas - of what time and space are.
What if time as the measure / number of motion or change, is purely measuremental and hence purely epistemic and cognitive?
Nevertheless, IF THINGS / PROCESSES EXIST OUTSIDE OF MINDS, it is important that existent things / processes too possess this dimension, which in any case cannot be epistemic and cognitive. Hence, CHANGE SHOULD BE THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL CATEGORY REPRESENTED BY TIME AT THE EPISTEMIC REALM.
No matter how we describe time, one thing is for sure, time is about the rate of change.
If the rate of change is between observable phenomena we need a relative unchangeable reference frame to express the rate of change (like the rotations of the earth and the orbit of the earth around the sun).
If we want to understand time at a more fundamental level we have to know how everything changes in our universe. Now we are confronted with the question of the origin of the continuous transformations of physical reality (everything we can observe and detect). Transformations that are “ruled” by universal conservation laws: the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum. Both universal conservation laws describe the conservation of the properties of the universal electric field and its corresponding field, the magnetic field.
In general a local change of the electric field (quantum of energy) generates a corresponding vector in the magnetic field and visa versa. Actually, time is about the changes generated by the electric and corresponding magnetic field. (By the way, both fields originate from classic physics but the modern interpretation is that both corresponding fields exist everywhere – at every "point" – in the universe and the modern term is "electromagnetic field": basic quantum fields.)
The electric field is a 3D topological field and the quantum of energy has only 1 linear velocity: the constant speed of light. No matter the velocity or direction of the emitter of the quantum of energy.
But the magnetic field is a 1D vector field. It doesn’t “transfer” energy, it “transfers” influence and the influence is observable as changes within the electric field.
Our concept of causality – and therefore time – originates from the universal electric field. Because the amount of change is a constant (Planck’s constant) and the linear velocity is a constant too (the speed of light). But the influence of vectors act instantaneous. Thus position and time are not causal if we focus only on the properties of the magnetic field.
The consequences of the existence of the non-causal magnetic field (vector field) has resulted in the Noble prize physics 2022. Because experiments have proved that our universe is non-local. It simply means that everything in our universe influences everything at exactly the same moment.
So if we think about the “nature of time” we have to realize that it doesn’t represent one clear concept. Time – change – is the result of different dynamical properties of the universe. Fortunately, all these properties are conserved and directly related.
With kind regards, Sydney
I believe that GRAVITATION IS MORE INFLUENTIAL than electromagnetism in determining the evolution of the cosmos:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Gravitation_or_Electromagnetism_cosmologically_more_important
Einstein : Die zeit misst man mit einer uhr. Or: Time is measured by a time meter.
Alexander Krebs, man sagt, "Die Zeit wird mithilfe eine Uhr gemessen."
Aber wirklich? Nein!
Die Uhrzeit / "Tageszeit" wird mit der Uhr gemessen.
One says that time is measured by a timepiece / watch.
The day's time is measured by a timepiece / watch.
Moreover, the common use in language is not the criterion for determining whether time in general or day's time is being measured.
In fact, time in general is an epistemic concept because it is measuremental. But measured time as the epistemic (measuremental) expression of Change is more towards the physical-ontological fact.
This is my opinion. Our discussion would further make things clearer, I believe.
Sorry I only cited Einstein by his original german mother language
" Was man sagt " spielt keine rolle , sondern nur was Einstein original gesagt hat .
According to general relativity, does time have an end?
Dear Panagiotis Michael Mougoyannis
Einstein's theory of General relativity cannot be used at the atomic scale size (microcosm) and cannot be used at the size of galaxies and larger. The latter has resulted in gravitational "theories" like MOND and Refracted gravity (used by cosmologists).
In other words, there is no direct relation between time as a universal concept of changes between all the phenomena at every scale size and the theory of General relativity.
So nobody can answer your question, although he/she can speculate about some kind of a fuzzy relation.
With kind regards, Sydney
With regards to the question of an accurate definition of the nature of time, I would favour Einstein’s theory that time and space are not independent of one another; rather time adds a fourth dimension to space: the resultant four-dimensional space-time being what has been described as the fabric of the universe.
Beyond that I would agree with Bardon that, ‘there is no subject more mysterious and ineffable’, and also note the suggestion of Heurtebise: ‘Time is by definition something whose definition is evolving through time’.
Time & Tide wait for no more .It is the action of time which remains the basic essence of our life .With our life time passing quickly & we have to move along with the time so that we may reach to the desire the goal of our life . It is in this line some years back I have expressed my views in this respect which I submit herewith for your kind information .
''Time & Tide wait for no more .For the time is the basic essence of our life & for this we can not afford to close our eye or to sit on easy chair. Ever day which we pass in our life we are also curtailing the time of our arrival covering the journey of our life . In this line time is the very basic essence of our life for which with our behavior ,conduct ,moral codes & ethics we may make our life in our happy surrounding making our family & also our surrounding members happy .
This is my personal opinion
“….Beyond that I would agree with Bardon that, ‘there is no subject more mysterious and ineffable’, and also note the suggestion of Heurtebise: ‘Time is by definition something whose definition is evolving through time’…”
- yeah, that is so now in mainstream sciences, including physics, with an addition – in the mainstream not only the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Time” is “mysterious and ineffable’”, in the mainstream also all other fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Energy”, “Information”, are equally mysterious and ineffable,
- while, at that, all they can be rationally scientifically defined only together.
Including all posts in the thread that “answer” to the thread question are in framework of the mainstream, and so are some mental constructions that really by no means are some really scientific definitions of “Time”, say that
“…With regards to the question of an accurate definition of the nature of time, I would favour Einstein’s theory that time and space are not independent of one another; rather time adds a fourth dimension to space: the resultant four-dimensional space-time being what has been described as the fabric of the universe….”
- is fundamentally wrong, space and time are fundamentally independent in the Matter’s absolute spacetime; and in the quote above was postulated – not by Einstein, but Minkowski, though – but Einstein fully agreed, because of for both them the phenomena/notions “space” and “time” were really completely mysterious and ineffable, and so they postulated in the SR/GR for “space” and “time” some mysterious “relativistic properties and effects” as some illusory interpretations of experimental data.
“…A natural sequence of events. It proceeds on the whole toward increased entropy.…”
- that is wrong as well, time evidently isn’t some “events”, including “sequences of events”, time is the time dimension – as that the space dimensions are, where sequences of events happen.
“…Also Kant with "apriori" of space and time - as a foundation of human mind experience has well formulated ideas - of what time and space are.…”
- and that is fundamentally wrong and was stated by Kant since he had some mysterious imagination about what the phenomena/notions above are, and so prescribed to human’s consciousness such strange ability; , space and time exist fundamentally absolutely independently on what somebody think.
“…Die zeit misst man mit einer uhr. Or: Time is measured by a time meter.… …”
- that again is some strange claim, time is time, time meter is time meter, and time, say, exists fundamentally independently on – some time meter “measures time” or not.
Etc., real definitions of the fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, given only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” concept, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and concretely how “Time” and “Space” are actualized in the informational system “Matter” in the SS&VT informational physical model, which is based on the concept, see first dozen of pages in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
More see the link above, to read firstly SS posts on pages 4 and 5 in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_time11#view=63c940bafa2ccd380d0b4943/4 it is useful as well.
Cheers
To the SS post above additionally: besides page 4 to read SS posts on pages 5 and 6 in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_time11#view=63c940bafa2ccd380d0b4943/6
- is useful for understanding what is time, and, of a lot of other fundamental things, though.
Cheers
"This definition works well considering a pendulum clock and an atomic clock."
There is a big difference between pendulum clock and atomic clock. So do not mix there results. (see my video if you like)
T=..√i/g Pendulum clock, no heart beat clock
T=..√m(alpha)/k like atomic clock is a heart beat clock
in a strong G-filed the Pendulum mass m(alpha) is increased! (GR+TD result)
you can use the EP if you want and increase the mass due to velocity
T=..√m(v)/k
"- is useful for understanding what is time, and, of a lot of other fundamental things, though."
See my video if you like. It is Einsteins way of thinking. Those who think some experiments force to accept that velocity of light changed is a step wrong because the mass(alpha) (ENERGY) changed is supporting Einstein. Although Einstein did not take into account this within GR
In GR+TD Einstein should read
E=m(alpha, v)*c^2+Q=const
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Data Mining
- Classification