Can Time Be Saved From Physics?

Very good! A clock makes very regular events and events are things that happen to matter. In other words, time emerges from things that happen and time is not then a separate substance...

Thanks. I didn't make clear that not only is the clock generated event, such as a mechanical tick, a particular change of spatial arrangement of parts, but the intervals between correspond to a particular regular change of the spatial arrangement of the apparatus; Such as the swing of a pendulum or particular motion of a spring driven wheel. 'Interval' sounds temporal but can be appreciated as corresponding to changing spatial configurations of matter, when clocks are being considered.

Re,"A clock is as material device that generates events with regular intervals between. It counts or provides the means for the number of generated events to be counted."GW This simple explanation is further complicated by the fact that it is not usually the clock generated events, e.g. 'ticks', that are counted by an observer (but could be). Instead the clock apparatus is calibrated so that a certain amount of such events corresponds to movement of pointers on a standard 'time' scale or change of digital output showing change corresponding to the 'time' scale. This calibration of the apparatus allows comparison of measurements made with different 'time' pieces, I.e. standardization. The standardization by calibration to a common scale does not fundamentally alter how the clock functions.

So time emerges from the outcomes of a clock and time does not exist without outcomes...

Hello dear thinkers,

Thanks for sharing your relevant extrapolations about this time.A pleasure to read.

This time is intriguing. I asked me if we could correlate it with the rotating quantum and cosmological sphères.

Friendly

Steve A., What is happening when timing is one series of regular calibrated events is being compared with another sequence of events, either the persistence of something or a sequence of change. The clock and 'timed' i.e. compared, sequences do not exist in isolation but as parts of the changing entirety of existence. Just considering foundational time: each unique entire configuration of simultaneously existing material reality can be considered as a time. The configuration, pattern, arrangement is a spatial distribution of existent things though. Foundational passage of time can be considered the changing configuration, only the youngest version, Uni-temporal Now, existing. That is the only existent 'time', not made of time but a material configuration given a temporal designation.

In Quantum Mechanics, time emerges from measurement rather than time 'being' in the first place. This is due entirely to the methodology which is dependent on the Schrodinger Wave Equation which itself lacks a time parameter. The time span is in practice assigned by the experimenter and is based on the convention of duration as predicated on Earth's rotational observation. Theoretically, time is therefore treated as an emergent phenomenon, however discretionary.

It may be useful to employ the word "timing' for comparison of an event or persisting phenomenon with the calibrated sequence of events generated by a timing device. Expressed as a timing span over which the comparison is made; rather than a time span.

Analogy for measuring a time span: measuring the length of a fuse from the burning end as it burns. Then giving the length of the entire fuse from start to end of burn. (The fuse has burned away and does not have that length.) When the final clock'time' comparison is made preceding 'times' have ceased to be.

Anonymous, do you think the scale used for time on Earth is problematic? Intelligent 'time-telling' life from other star systems would likely use a scale appropriate to their experience. If communication about foundational time was happening between the Earth's human's and extraterrestrials elsewhere then a common scale based on a regular cycle experienced in both habitats would be useful. Overcoming the need for conversion from one scale to another each time. Maybe a cycle based on the chemistry of an abundant element, would suffice.

Dear Georgina,

The only fact the physicists have ever proven am that the real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years before any humanly devised time-piece ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface. Please understand that a sundial (which has a real VISIBLE surface) can be placed anywhere on the Earth's real VISIBLE surface. Let us suppose that the sundial am removed and a Swiss made grandfather clock (which has a real VISIBLE surface) replaces it. Years pass, then scientists (all of whom have real VISIBLE surfaces) put an atomic clock (which has a real VISIBLE surface) in the same place the two previous man made timepieces were positioned in. There would be no rational way any finite duration of invisible time could really be recorded. The only thing that would happen would be the scientists would be able to produce an endless record of utterly useless numbers.

Joe Fisher, Sensible Realist

Georgi,

interesting way to pose that conundrum. I would have to go with radiological half-lives as a standardization metric based on the evidence available from direct observation. While the available census does support a constant rate of decay regardless of strength (or perhaps depth would be a more practical characterization) of an isotopes location in a gravitational field, that census also supports the Big Bang interpretation. And of course, QM and GR are at odds. I think the horns of the dilemma grow from an incomplete understanding at inception of both disciplines. GR is incomplete largely due to the choice of maths being a tensor variant of The Calculus which limits at finity, and the lack of a postulated upper and lower density bound. While in the other camp, Planck's Constant remains without rationalization and a Time parameter is lacking in both Bohr's Quantum Leap and the Wave Equation which Schrodinger constructed to fit Bohr's approximation of Bunsen and Kirchoff's observed spectral lines . Both theoretical methods work very well to a large degree, so generally that satisfies most practitioners. But it also highlights that the fact remaining is a lack of observational capability of (1) the event horizon, and (2) the Transition Zone of the reception of an EM (quantity) photon. So while it is evident that half-lives must be fairly constant across the range of gravitational field strengths in the general gravitational reference, or there would not be the estimable census of radiological isotopes surviving in the earth's rocky planet inventory, it cannot be said factually that half-lives do not vary to some small degree dependent on proximity to gravitational influence.

I see very well where you are going with this, and would concur that in the context of both SR and GR that it should still be possible to define a particle such that a real absolute velocity value could be theoretically obtained as a covariant function of velocity on the density and shape of a particle in direction of its motion. Observation would none the less, still be a calculable invariant transform from one assigned rest reference towards (or onto) the other relative objective change of position. Best I can do at present, :) jrc

In quantum mechanics, time and space both emerge from measurement rather than time or space 'being' in the first place. This is due entirely to the methodology which is dependent on the discrete Schrödinger wave equation, which itself lacks time and space with pure matter action. The time intervals and spatial lengths are in practice assigned by the experimenter and are based on the convention of radius and duration Earth's rotation period. Theoretically, time and space are therefore emergent phenomena and do not exist independent of matter action.

There is a second dimension to time in the rate of change of the universe. This much slower time affects all matter action and even black holes are subject to universe time. However, atomic time and space have no meaning in black holes.

John, the co-ordination of clock time for distant locations is a different subject to what would be a good common scale for use at different star system locations for comparison with local happening or duration and sharing that locally obtained knowledge with the other star system's intelligent 'time-telling' life forms. That is just like choosing pounds or kilograms, cm.s or inches, Fahrenheit or Celsius. I was thinking lithium is pretty prevalent and oxygen too, so maybe the scale could be based on the lithium flame. Not useful if a rare element is chosen that one of the involved planets might not have

Steve, the clock is a be-able material thing and the regular events it generates are material happenings. The event that is timed involves a be-able thing. The clock generated events are compared to the timed event and a number on the time scale is assigned to the timed event. Timing has happened. There is then a known number associated with the event that occurred. I don't think there was no changing entire configuration of material reality (sequence of times) until the number was assigned but there was no knowing of where the event would be on the clock time scale.

When timing has happened, knowledge of the timed event has a number (from the clock time scale) associated with what else is known about the event. The association of the number allows the knowledge of happening of the event to be numerically ordered with timing knowledge of other events. Which can be thought of as ordering along a (mental concept) time line.The mental picture of the happenings or representation of it such as a diagram or written sequence is not the same as the happenings themselves. They are representations of temporal order, they are not time.

Dr. Agnew,

It is a pleasure that you treat theory as Theory, it shows in your adherence to axiomatic integrity even given the hard sell that your own theorizing results compel. It's always best to learn what any theoretical paradigm fully consists of whether or not in agreement with one's own preference, for my preference may be oranges but that does not constitute a valid argument against apples. As with mathematics and the choices thereof, the necessity is that one does not violate one's choice of axioms while accommodating accepted conventions of knowledge. Chemistry was still King in Maxwell's day or his results would not have compelled On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Best Wishes, jrc

- Unless time is being defined as 'what a clock shows". if so the numerical ordering obtained from association might also be considered time (by association). If foundational time is the configuration of existence, then the 'time'telling' of the clock is a part of the changing configuration as is the timed event.

Joe, your description of the rocket makes it clear that what you are describing is what is seen, the observation product generated by the observers visual system, and not the source material reality from which "light" was reflected, enabling the process of vision. At the location of the material rocket it is the same size as it lifts off high into the sky. (Not considering the jettisoning of parts). There is not just one appearance. Near and distant observers form their own observation products from the 'light' signals input to their own visual systems. The difference between material reality and observation product is relevant to the relativity of time in physics. Including why there can not be time travel into the material past, even though images off 'the past' can be formed from received 'light' signals.