A Question of Time

reply to post by InfaRedMan

---

Hello IRM!

Nice. I wonder what makes us think of similar concepts within similar timeframes!

Anyway my thoughts were even more drastic.
If you want you can have a look of my thoughts at: Maybe there is NO TIME but just a mere REALITY

Time is simple. Time is change relative to change. Nothing more.

reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK

---

Hey GTG! Good to see you mate. Nice of you to pop in!

Though this thread has been running for about a week now, some of the theories contained within would suggest that both threads still happened at the same (I hate to say it) time!

IRM

Another thing I wonder about is that if time is real, does it have a true speed at which it runs. This means without any external forces altering how we observe it such as relative speed and gravity.

Would it be possible for something to exceed that speed? If it could what would the effects be? Think of when an object exceeds the speed of sound. We hear a sonic boom. What could an analogous effect on time produce? A massive time dilation? I don't know if it's even possible but I thought I'd ask the question.

Once upon a time, I thought that anything that exists within time could not exceed the speed of time itself or to put it in a simpler term, exceed the limits of it's environment. I wondered if light could travel faster but was being throttled back by the traffic cop we call time.

Then I learned that gravity waves move faster than light so that kind of blew my imaginings out the window, however the core questions remained. Does the speed of time trump gravity or does the speed gravity trump time? We know that gravity effects time but that says nothing of their speeds.

If we could exceed the maximum speed at which reality transpires (or time), would we find another dimension outside of time, or would everything just appear to freeze or run backwards depending on the extent to which we exceed it?

I'm ranting...

IRM

[edit on 24/2/09 by InfaRedMan]

Yes time has a definite speed it all comes down to relativity. . . you move through time at the speed of light. . . this is where relativity comes in. . . as you move and expend energy you are using part of your speed of light energy to move through space therefore when your in motion time slows down below the speed of light because your using energy to move through the spatial dimensions. If you were to actually obtain the speed of light moving through spatial dimensions time would appear to stop relative to you. This is why in the quantum world so many things can happen in tiny tiny amounts of time quanta can move very close to the speed of light therefore time relative to them is almost not even measurable. Basically it all boils down to how fast your moving compared to the speed of light.

E=mc2 time and space are interchangable they are the same thing time and light both move the same speed relative to one another

Another question you posed IRM was if we could exceed the speed at which light and time both travel what would happen well again according to relativity time for an object exceeding this speed would run backwards yes thats right backwards. If you could go faster than the speed of light/time you would be able to leave a place and return their prior to having left. let that sink in

post script
gravity travels @ the speed of light. . . remember we're pretty sure gravity is caused by a particle with mass mass cant move faster than the speed of light. The recoil of gravity if mass is suddenly removed however may move faster than speed of light. Intuition tells me it still would not exceed c but i will look into it further and post back afterwhile

[edit on 24-2-2009 by constantwonder]

[edit on 24-2-2009 by constantwonder]

reply to post by constantwonder

---

Interesting! Thanks for contributing such fantastic information constantwonder!

I recently read an article on gravity that claimed it was instantaneous, or faster than light. BUT.... After reading your post, I went and got myself up to date on a couple of sites and although it appears there is a minor divide as to whether we can accurately measure the speed of gravity in controlled environments, the general consensus is that it's roughly the speed of light.

The question remains, (for me anyway), which of the three; time, light and gravity is the traffic cop. Is it possible one enforces a speed limit on the other. Could there be a paper, rock and scissors relationship or is there a 4th player in this equation, an overseer who dictates the cosmic speed limit on all three. By a 4th player, I don't mean 'physics'.

To be honest I find myself starting to think in a loop for even if it was was common physics that dictates time, gravity and light; what dictates physics to express itself in the way that it does. I guess the ultimate question is, "Who or what writes the rulebook?" Do we need the initial observer as quantum theory suggests? Perhaps this is a philosophical/metaphysical question, perhaps not. The lines blur.

Again I will reel myself in as I'm beginning to rant.

IRM

Thats the golden question isnt it who or what sets the rules. If your into string/m-theory then its the way in which are membrane vibrates that sets the way reality manifests itself. The answer lies beyond the big bang a place our current physics cannot go.

Most of us who are interested in the answers that lie beyond that threshold are waiting for the boys at cern to provide some answers. The next few years should prove very interesting. Wether or not they find the higgs or sparticles or nothing at all.

I think that if they find nothing at all it would be of tremendous interest because that means were dead wrong and we need to go back and re-think everything that has brought us to this point.

reply to post by constantwonder

---

Doesn't the Higgs Boson kind of suggest that String Theory was wrong? That is, of course, if they find it. Sorry if I'm being naive!

IRM

I dont really have alot of time now so i will direct you to a good article in scientific american that discusses the higgs in both the standard model and in string theory

www.sciam.com...

hopefully later ill have time to interject some personal thoughts on the subject because as you may have gathered i love quantum physics

reply to post by InfaRedMan

---

Star and Flag IRM

But as they say in Star Trek.. I hate Temporal Mechanics!

No seriously, even though I've always been interested in the concept of time and time travel, the endless scenarios I'd envision; always end up with a paradox.

reply to post by Majorion

---

Time has always fascinated me Majorion! I still have so many questions about it - if it is actually 'real'. The paradox's are fun. The only way past them is to create some BS story like John Titor did. However, his story was poorly thought out and had more holes than a butterfly net. Poor guy, I wonder what parallel universe he is in now wondering why he can't get back home with his IBM.

IRM

i just posted a new thread similar to this before i saw this one. i started it out sort of the same on accident too.

i believe time is different in "close systems" although they are not completely closed. there is only a perceived "now".

Im bumping this thread, Because I think it should have more discussion put to it.
What I was saying above, I have found in a article on Time.

issuu.com...

We apply time. We sence time psycologically. Physics and math sence it differently.
Time allows us to experience infinity.
We experience different aspects of infinity.
It exists, but not as we apply it.



Our application of time is:
of past present and future...is this time? We imply the movement or passing of time, but flux is the movement of an object and is it a "matter" of time, or a "question' of time. If its matter in a object in flux...nope, More likely a quesiton of time...It exists to allow the experience of infinty.



issuu.com...

EDIT...NB your string theory/Higgs conundrum....Standard model-nope cant account for Higgs /....A supersymmetric Standard Model can.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 3-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]

We use language to construct temporal extensions , since we were children we have been constructing representations of sequences of events .

We anticipate .

Speech extends the function of anticipation for us . Language plays such a vital role in our grappling with rather abstract thoughts, liberating and limiting all at once.

And as for the night sky, the incredible journey of photons across space ending at my grateful retinas ...... staring deep into the past .
All of the sensory information we receive about the world around us, has a time lag attached, however short.
..... mind warping stuff indeed .

Thanks for the bump Ms Frazzy! I rather enjoyed that



It's quite graphic when explained in those terms... It brings me back to one of my original questions though.

What direction is time taking us? We call it 'the future'... but is it really? Is 'the future' an abstract term? A concept that allows our brain to deal with extra dimensions outside of our 3 dimensional framework? Could the future be defined as simply 'somewhere'? Given we have never been to the future, can we reliably say that that is where we are traveling?...

and if so...

Is the future brought towards us or are we propelled into it? Do we move along with time like floating down a river... or are we stationary with time thrust upon us... kind of like facing into a head wind?

Would we not perceive it the same way in either circumstance?

Where does time come from? Is there a point from where it flows? Does it still flow once it's 'behind us'... or is it something transient that only exists in the 'now'? Does it even exist.. or does 'stuff' just happen in a static space propelled by some other 'force' we cannot even fathom?

All I know is it's Beer 'O' Clock!

IRM

[edit on 4/11/09 by InfaRedMan]

LOL
I answered your points above.
Ok Ill re summarize.
Its a fixed time-scape.
The past future and present are psychological application made by us.
If it has "matter" then it is in flux. It does not.
Space time distances are not the same as spacial distances. We think spacial... from here to there, how long.
U GOTTA READ THAT MAGAZINE ITS FANTASTIC, ALL YOUR QUESTIONSOOF ANSWERED
all theoretical, but close i think.

Why does time itself have to move? Why does it have to have an alpha and an omega? My theory on time:

Time is static. It's one of the two components that make space-time and thus time always is and always will be, much like space. Time is just there. Everything else with mass moves through space and thus time is distorted in the local area of the mass, creating a past (what it did), present (what it's doing) and future (what it will do) of that mass. So the passage of time is merely a distortion realative to an object with mass.

How does this affect time travel if it's possible? I think that if it's possible, it would be opening up the multi-verse...not the true past of what we would know it, but one similar.

I hope this makes sense, because I'm tired.

No one is saying it does. The question posed was 'does it move... and if so...". Personally I've always had trouble with time moving. I've always seen time as a static soup in which things happen... But it's just as likely I'm wrong. That's the beauty of a mystery. I don't think anyone really understands it.

IRM

[edit on 10/11/09 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by InfaRedMan

---

Time doesn't actually exist as a fundamental force of the universe. It's an abstracted measure of sequential events. Never once in history have we ever discovered a fundamental force of time. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong, and please leave clocks out of the explanation.