consciousness is non-orientable. reality is a knot. (Quantum Theoretic Machines)

reply to post by onequestion

Are we examing possibility, then choosing the possible outcomes of measureable time and creating that into our mind(reality)?

I'm more of a determinist and I personally view this whole quantum mechanics thing as mere scientific magic akin to supernatural magic. One form being done with spirituality and the other done through physics.

Once all variables are known, there are no probabilities. We only see probabilities because our finite ability to know all variables and to account for all variables leads to only seeing probabilities. At least in my humble opinion. If we could take any single event and see every variable of cause and effect from the initiation of that event to it's conclusion from the beginning of reality to it's very end... then where is the probability of that event occurring? There would no longer be any probability as every variable is accounted for.

Same way I view this time issue. We perceive an "arrow of time" and hypothesize a fourth dimension of time that we move through whilst ignoring the fact that we've never measured nor observed any aspect of this hypothetical unit of time. We perceive sequential cyclical events and subscribe that as thing's moving through time. Never once have we seen this illusory fourth dimension.

reply to post by sirnex


So I have a question,

Could we be observing the dimensions(4th) through idea and mind?

Originally posted by onequestion
Ok, i mean, at least from another perspective, so basiclly every calculation we make of time is wrong because every calculation is subjective.

We measure time in our reference frame and we know how to make adjustments for other reference frames, and compare those to our own.

But if you're saying our time frame isn't "absolute" yes that's kind of the point of relativity.

Timekeeping in our reference frame is vastly more complex than people who have never studied it realize:

en.wikipedia.org...

International Atomic Time (TAI, from the French name Temps Atomique International) is a high-precision atomic coordinate time standard based on the notional passage of proper time on Earth's geoid. It is the principal realisation of Terrestrial Time, and the basis for Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) which is used for civil timekeeping all over the Earth's surface. ...


TAI as a time scale is a weighted average of the time kept by over 200 atomic clocks in about 70 national laboratories worldwide. The clocks are compared using satellites.[2] Due to the averaging it is far more stable than any clock would be alone (see signal averaging for a discussion). The majority of the clocks are caesium clocks; the definition of the SI second is written in terms of caesium.[3]

The participating institutions each broadcast, in real time, a frequency signal with time codes, which is their estimate of TAI. Time codes are usually published in the form of UTC. These time scales are denoted in the form TAI(NPL) (UTC(NPL) for the UTC form), where NPL in this case identifies the National Physical Laboratory, UK.

The clocks at different institutions are regularly compared against each other. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) combines these measurements to retrospectively calculate the weighted average that forms the most stable time scale possible. This combined time scale is published monthly in Circular T, and is the canonical TAI. This time scale is expressed in the form of tables of differences UTC-UTC(x) and TAI-TA(x), for each participating institution x.

The speed of light is way too slow for the accuracy they achieve with these clocks, it's incredible.

Also, GPS wouldn't work without this kind of accuracy, and relativistic adjustments to the clocks on the satellites.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

We had Einstein's theories. We made calculations of how those theories would affect the clocks in planes flying around the Earth. The observations matched the theory within calculated margins of error. So we can say the experimental observations are consistent with the theory to a high degree of confidence, and further, that similar results have since been repeated with even more accurate experiments.

Are those calculations made showing a measurable movement through a fourth dimension of time that can be pointed to as a new observable dimension that can be directly measured upon or are the calculations made in reference to gravitational influences or increased mass of atoms as they move closer to C velocities increasing in mass?

I'm far from a physicist, but I still don't see any direct measurement of this fourth dimension. Just sounds so scifi-ish to me. I can't even wrap my head around the implications of a fourth dimension and the ability to travel backwards through it.... How does a time travel machine reverse entropy for the entire universe?

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by sirnex

 

So I have a question,

Could we be observing the dimensions(4th) through idea and mind?

Ermm... Not 100% sure what your asking here...

I think the perception of time is just that... a perception. We see sequential cyclical events and arbitrarily account those events as moving through time. To my personal belief.

And I was reading that wiki link btw.... looks like the time dilation effect is directly derived from gravitational and velocity calculations and not from any direct measurement of a fourth dimension of time, at least if I'm reading the greek letters right...

In other words, it's not a dilation of time itself... It's a dilation of atomic measurement, or something like that.

Originally posted by sirnex
And I was reading that wiki link btw.... looks like the time dilation effect is directly derived from gravitational and velocity calculations and not from any direct measurement of a fourth dimension of time, at least if I'm reading the greek letters right...

Which wiki link...the one I posted? That's a direct measurement of time dilation.

They also show the math to calculate what it would be if Einstein's theory is correct. The direct measurements match the math in the theories.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Which wiki link...the one I posted? That's a direct measurement of time dilation.

Yea, this one en.wikipedia.org...

Looks like it's saying time dilation equals what is calculated by

"Where c = speed of light, h = height, g=acceleration of gravity, v = velocity, ω = angular velocity of Earth's rotation and τ represents the duration/distance of a section of the flight"

Rather than showing any direct measurement of time itself actually dilating. So it's deriving a perceived dilation of a fourth dimension of time based upon calculations that have nothing to do with a physical fourth dimension of time in which things move through.

Basically we're still measuring drips of water here and calling it time.

Originally posted by sirnex
Yea, this one en.wikipedia.org...
Rather than showing any direct measurement of time itself actually dilating.

You need to read better, how can you miss the measurements?

............ gravitational.... kinematic ....... total ....... measured
eastward 144±14 .... −184 ± 18 ...... −40 ± 23...... −59 ± 10
westward 179±18 ..... 96±10 ........... 275±21 ........ 273±7

The total column is the total calculated, and the measured column is the one you're ignoring, that's measured, direct measurements of time dilation.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


From what I'm seeing in the greek letters it appears to me that the time dilation is calculated based upon gravitational and velocity measurements compared to measured rates of clocks stationary on the planets surface.

Where is the direct measurement upon a fourth dimension of time?

I can grasp the concept that gravitational and velocity influences can affect the oscillations of atoms in a cesium clock, but I fail to see how those influences correlate to a fourth dimension of time.

Originally posted by sirnex
From what I'm seeing in the greek letters it appears to me that the time dilation is calculated based upon gravitational and velocity measurements compared to measured rates of clocks stationary on the planets surface.

Yes the calculations are in column 3, total.

Where is the direct measurement upon a fourth dimension of time?

In column 4, measured.

I can grasp the concept that gravitational and velocity influences can affect the oscillations of atoms in a cesium clock, but I fail to see how those influences correlate to a fourth dimension of time.

How do you grasp the concept that gravitational and velocity influences can affect the oscillations of atoms in a cesium clock? Using Einstein's relativity models? Then you grasp how this experiment confirms time dilation with a direct measurement.

If you grasp it with some other model, what other model?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

In column 4, measured.

What was measured? Time itself dilating or cesium atoms oscillating at a different rate compared to clocks on Earth?

How do you grasp the concept that gravitational and velocity influences can affect the oscillations of atoms in a cesium clock? Using Einstein's relativity models? Then you grasp how this experiment confirms time dilation with a direct measurement.

I don't believe it confirms a fourth dimension of time as I can still not currently find any direct observation of this dimension. I believe it confirms that gravity and velocity can affect atoms to varying degrees based upon their effects. Which to me just seems common sense, but in no way do I see this as confirmation of any aspect of time.

If we measure how how many drips of water there are by counting one two three at a slower or faster cycle, does that mean we're speeding up or slowing down time?

Originally posted by sirnex
What was measured? Time itself dilating or cesium atoms oscillating at a different rate compared to clocks on Earth?

Relative time.

In your drips of water example, how do you get a steady rate of water drips? You don't. The rate of oscillations in the cesium clocks is quite different than water drips:

science.howstuffworks.com...

To create a clock, cesium is first heated so that atoms boil off and pass down a tube maintained at a high vacuum. First they pass through a magnetic field that selects atoms of the right energy state; then they pass through an intense microwave field. The frequency of the microwave energy sweeps backward and forward within a narrow range of frequencies, so that at some point in each cycle it crosses the frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second). The range of the microwave generator is already close to this exact frequency, as it comes from an accurate crystal oscillator. When a cesium atom receives microwave energy at exactly the right frequency, it changes its energy state.

At the far end of the tube, another magnetic field separates out the atoms that have changed their energy state if the microwave field was at exactly the correct frequency. A detector at the end of the tube gives an output proportional to the number of cesium atoms striking it, and therefore peaks in output when the microwave frequency is exactly correct. This peak is then used to make the slight correction necessary to bring the crystal oscillator and hence the microwave field exactly on frequency. This locked frequency is then divided by 9,192,631,770 to give the familiar one pulse per second required by the real world.

This is in fact how we define time, one second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

So it's time literally by definition. Water dripping is not time.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

In your drips of water example, how do you get a steady rate of water drips? You don't. The rate of oscillations in the cesium clocks is quite different than water drips:

What do you mean you don't?

Are you saying that physics doesn't work at all when we count how many drips fall out dependent upon the size of the buckets hole? The rate the cesium atoms oscillate is just the same, we're still arbitrarily counting how many oscillations occur and calling x amount a second based upon calculation of our planets orbit around the sun. Even your quoted article has nothing to say about a direct measurement of a fourth dimension of time in which things move through.

I don't get it... Time as a fourth dimension not being a tangible thing doesn't necessarily mean anything bad about the universe itself...

This is in fact how we define time, one second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

So it's time literally by definition. Water dripping is not time.

It's the SAME thing, we're just replacing the water with cesium atoms. We can use sand, we can use our orbit around the sun, we can use the osculations of quartz crystals in our watches. Where is the actual use of a fourth dimension of time being measured? Why is this hard to grasp? Using the cyclical events of physical objects should never be confused with a fourth dimension of time. It's just flipping entropy, the normal inner working of things doing what they naturally do.

Excellent discussion folks, and thanks for helping me see how gravity effects the observed passage of Time at various heights above the earth's.

I was aware that Time observed as Light reaching us from distant parts of the universe fluctuates.. or the perception of it fluctuates with gravitational lensing, as Light is bent around a massive object. Does that mean Time is slowed for Light in such cases?

I'd like to know also if there is a Biological effect on astronauts, at the ISS for instance.. which would indicate a slightly different aging compared to people on the surface of earth. I do understand now, thanks again, that reduced gravity must have a biological effect on the body.

And I still don't understand how Time could be a 4th Dimension, especially if no one was observing the "passage" of it.

Apologies for the fuzziness of mind when asking these questions.. the brain is still asleep in bed at the moment.

Originally posted by Tayesin
And I still don't understand how Time could be a 4th Dimension, especially if no one was observing the "passage" of it.

Time only seems more complex because it is the movement of consciousness rather than our physical body.

But all dimensions are products of observation.

Originally posted by Jezus
Time only seems more complex because it is the movement of consciousness rather than our physical body.

But all dimensions are products of observation.

Hi,
I don't see Time as a dimension, to me it is only a concept that has no existence outside of Expected Observation.

And other "subtle" dimensions pre-exist our ability while human to perceive them. To me, what is poorly called the astral layers/levels of awareness are only the support stages for experience in this human realm.

Originally posted by sirnex
Are you saying that physics doesn't work at all when we count how many drips fall out dependent upon the size of the buckets hole?

I'm saying physics works fine, but you're ignorant about physics, so you're using the wrong physics. Take the bucket of water and the clock both up to the ISS in earth orbit.

The water no longer drips out of the hole, but time hasn't stopped, so water coming out of the hole in the bucket can't be a correct measure of time, can it? So you can't use water dripping out of a hole to measure time in a different gravitational field as was done in the airplane clock experiment. The cesium clock keeps running according to the fundamental laws of physics as we know them, that's why we use the cesium clock to define time. Even on Earth where we might try to use water dripping or sand flowing as crude time measurement devices, they are nowhere near accurate enough for relativity experiments or practical applications involving precise time measurements, like the global positioning system. There are too many other variables like the sand particles don't all have uniform shape and composition, and rest against each other with slightly coefficients of friction in randomly different orders each time you use the hourglass, in addition to the fact that it will give you a different reading on a mountaintop than it will on a beach because it doesn't work at all in zero G and the mountain top has reduced gravity.

Look I've tried to patiently explain this to you. If you don't want to believe it, fine, the rest of the world doesn't really care if you wish to remain ignorant and in denial, until you want to use GPS, then you're basically using GPS technology to prove the relativistic calculations are right, because if they weren't, it wouldn't work. But when we define time units as oscillations of a cesium atom and then you say that doesn't measure time, that's a pretty ignorant claim.

If you want to describe something else, then call it something else, like "sirnex time" and you can come up with your own definition of that. But time is measured in seconds as defined by the cesium clock so not only does the cesium clock measure time, it defines time.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But when we define time units as oscillations of a cesium atom and then you say that doesn't measure time, that's a pretty ignorant claim.

Your kidding right?

If we arbitrarily call the oscillations of a cesium atom a unit of time and then count these oscillations in a sequential order and arbitrarily attribute 9,192,631,770 as being one second.... Well, not technically arbitrarily as we do need to calculate in our orbit around the sun for accuracy sake.

Somehow we've now directly measured a fourth dimension of time in which these oscillations occur through?

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult nor in denial. I'm just trying to figure out where are we measuring directly a fourth dimension of temporal travel in which Einstein's equations allows for both forward and backward motion through this dimension freely. Yet this is never observed to be true, things obey entropy. We don't see things freely moving backwards through time, it can't happen, but it SHOULD according to Einstein.

The reason it doesn't happen is because there is no fourth dimension of temporal travel and there is no fighting entropy. Simply put, measuring a sequential cyclical event and CALLING it time doesn't MAKE it time.

Time does not exist, I always thought the same, just like laws that are writen on paper does not exist in reality, they are not real. They hold no real bearing on reality ? we enforce them. Unlike the rules and laws of nature that are real. Time is just a measurement factor, no one can touch time, time is not an object, it's not like water.
I would gladly like to say that time is made of some funny essence, out of some kind of particles.
So time is an invisible force ? it does not exist ? It's just a perception, just like imagination made up so we can measure real things, like days, months and so on.

reply to post by pepsi78

It's just a perception, just like imagination made up so we can measure real things, like days, months and so on.

Exactly! A day is considered to be a period of time, but just as a second is arbitrarily defined by the cesium atom a day is defined by the cyclical sequential rotation of our planet upon it's axis around our star. We don't have a day because time as a fourth dimension dictates a day is 24 hours. We have a day due to physical forces that have nothing to do with an illusory fourth dimension we like to pretend and call time. Things follow entropy, not made up super dimensions that tell us we should see things that freely move backwards through them only to never observe anything that does. Einstein was bright in his own right, but god damn... he isn't the end all to all known physics, hence why his equations do not explain everything.

Sometimes people worship Einsteinian physics as if it were a religious belief. No matter where you turn you'll always find people who want to believe in fantasies out of sheer necessity to have all the answers right now. Humility is a thing of the past.