# Time for Time

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
This thread has been opened in response to some new ideas being expressed.
Time is such a misunderstood question that I hope that, between us, we may shed some new light.

I would like to kick off on the nature of space time which we bandy around so glibly. My problem with time as a 4th dimension is that it is so unlike the 'first three' dimensions. As Wiki states: Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. How does this meld into space-time? Is space-time an outdated concept?

There is plenty more to mull over,

Last edited:

#### Geomartian

I am under the delusion that I understand space-time and this looks like a meeting of Space-Time anonymous .

I think that space-time was one of those instances where they threw out an idea without realizing how deep the rabbit hole went.

A dimension could be defined as a measurable quantity that can have a wide range of values.

A dimension applies to something real. This requires time to be independent/separate from matter.

I will use two examples to define time’s end points. Everyone seems to agree that the rate of time within a black hole is equivalent to zero.

The other endpoint is infinity (not one). For an infinitely small mass, in an empty universe, the rate of time is infinite.

A mass (even a particle) has a gravitational field.

If gravity is a gradient in time, then time can produce a physical force. That makes time a physical property.

Energy is required to displace time.

A force applied to a mass modifies that masses gravitational field (at the atomic level?) to keep that mass falling into its own field. This gives rise to inertia.

Energy and the displacement of time are equivalent.

Space-time’s real properties must be accounted for when creating a scientific or mathematical framework.

A sure case of physics derangement.

iwnt2kw and IG2007

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Can't say I follow all of that. What is your take on this:
"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. How does this meld into space-time?"

IG2007

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
First of all, Cat, I would like to praise you for having such a sharp brain even at an age of 81, this is unique. Secondly, I guess not only entropy requires an "arrow of time", expansion of the universe also needs it. Because of the Hubble's Law, it is possible for something that is visible in the Electromagnetic Spectra now might not be visible in the future . It is true that the displacement of matter increases along with time, and the same is the case with Expansion of the Universe.

And Geomartian, in my opinion, energy and displacement of time are not equivalent. Both have different units. Time has an arrow whereas energy hasn't. Energy remains constant forever whereas displacement increases with time.

Catastrophe

#### Geomartian

And Geomartian, in my opinion, energy and displacement of time are not equivalent. Both have different units.
That unit conversion is a work in progress. Kinetic energy defined as joules seems to be a stable point. Time (as energy) appears to be conditional on things like the density of matter within huge volumes of space.

Fixing the amount of energy, obeying the law of conservation by making energy a constant leads to a universe where the speed of light per second is constant. But the length of that second (rate of time) can change by orders of magnitude for small diffuse masses. Observations of apparently superluminal velocities like black hole jets (diffuse matter entering low density space) could be actual dependent on the rate of time within that space. Within that space light travels the same distance within one second as our own. The length of that second (time rate) is much smaller than ours.

The Sun’s mass tends to lock our time rate near one.

Like I said a work in progress.

Entropy is a statistical expression that loses meaning the farther you get from very simple models.

Why hasn’t all the mass in the universe been converted into neutrinos or been captured by black holes? Both examples satisfy entropy.

Quasars (as a white hole) suggest that (ruptured?) black holes return matter back to the universe.

Capture of neutrinos by matter appears to occur more frequently in flat space-time (low gravity and low density).

The universe seems to have mechanisms for resetting entropy.

If time and energy are linked it would create a paradox without the arrow of time. The universe exists so there is no paradox.

IG2007

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
The universe seems to have mechanisms for resetting entropy.

If time and energy are linked it would create a paradox without the arrow of time. The universe exists so there is no paradox.
Okay, the first thing I don't understand is: how come the universe has mechanisms for resetting entropy? I mean, it's a fact that all the matter in the universe is not in blackholes or quasars. That is why entropy always increases. This is the reason why it takes far less energy to do a work rather than reversing it. Like, it's really easy to make an omelette out of an egg but it's extremely hard or rather say impossible to make an egg out of an omelette. Tell me how come entropy be reversed?

And the next line that I have quoted says that "If time and energy are linked it would create a paradox without the arrow of time." You are telling the opposite of your statement.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Hello both. IG please excuse me if I reply to Geomartian first.
There is so much there to try to retain. It will be interesting to see if we pick the same or different points, and how we deal with them. I have not read your reply yet.

Now, Mr Geomartian, Sir.

"leads to a universe where the speed of light per second is constant." A speed is not a speed per second. It is (for us) measured in metres per second. SCI.
Anyway, that is an aside. My question is: Are you still talking in vacuo? (Our vacuum) Or have you got different vacua in mind?

"But the length of that second (rate of time) can change by orders of magnitude for small diffuse masses."
Come on! A second is based on Earth and you can't change it in any way. You cannot start having Jupiter seconds and Alpha Centauri seconds. You can say that time is varied relative to some constant like the time light travels in vacuo to cover a certain distance - if we have agreed measuring rods - if you have to, you can define a second (not our second) as a gobbletron or whatever. But leave our second alone

"Entropy is a statistical expression that loses meaning the farther you get from very simple models". You cannot shove entropy under the carpet like that. It is fundamental. It dictates (or is dictated by) the arrow of time. Your denigration of it, Sir )) is like saying that space is just a Cartesian jungle.
(Perhaps you already said that, and I missed it?)
Without increasing degree of disorder, where are we?

"Quasars (as a white hole) suggest that (ruptured?) black holes return matter back to the universe"
Here we might be getting close to agreeing. It is not my idea, though I thought of it before I read it elsewhere, that we have an eggtimer. A Universe where there is a junction between big bang and big crunch(or rip, or whatever). Yes. I think BHs are just part of a cycle and not some sort of eternal damnation for scientists.

"The universe seems to have mechanisms for resetting entropy." NO WAY. You can't start ziggling around with degrees of disorder. Suddenly all those molecules of NaCl in the ocean jump backwards and lounge on the beach. No Way!

"If time and energy are linked it would create a paradox without the arrow of time. The universe exists so there is no paradox."
What language are we talking here? Sorry. To me, that is worse than goggledegook.

Anyway, best wishes. We can differ without animosity

Last edited:

#### Geomartian

What is entropy? Disorganization or the arrow of time?

Once events begin, they go in a particular direction. Energy moves downhill. Events where energy moves to lower levels or is spread through the system are more likely. Events where energy increases in one part of system by removal of energy from other lower energy parts of the system are unlikely. The arrow of time is energy.

To cook the egg, we have to supply the energy to make new chemical bonds. The energy supplied causes a different chemical reaction than letting the egg rot. The cooking of an egg is not a closed system.

The cooked egg still has a lot of chemical energy in it or it would not be food. Once consumed the energy drops even further in the waste products. Energy is moving downhill.

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
You are not understanding the thing. The point is that, disorder increases in the Universe along with the arrow of time. There is no change to that.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
A brief post that I can understand.

Entropy is just a word to denote that one thing happens before another. If you like, it defines time or vice versa .

"What is entropy? Disorganization or the arrow of time?"
Entropy is a degree of disorganisation which tells us what happens in some sequence we call time.
That's just off the top of my head, for what it is worth. I'll go search a better one.

IG2007

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
"a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system."

Well, I actually preferred mine.

IG2007

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
You are not understanding the thing. The point is that, disorder increases in the Universe along with the arrow of time. There is no change to that.
Well said IG!

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
"a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system."

Well, I actually preferred mine.
I also preferred yours. By the way, let me state the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the net disorder or displacement of particles in a closed thermal system increases along with time. If I consider the Universe as a closed thermal system, then it applies to the universe as well.
Well said IG!
Thanks.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
IG. Thank you for your comment

"Secondly, I guess not only entropy requires an "arrow of time", expansion of the universe also needs it."

Of course you can say that about anything that moves. It is a subsidiary effect of the initial assumption. Am I wrong? Quite possibly I am. There is one ides I was hoping might arrive that perhaps our idea of time is wrong.

Personally, I have the gravest reservations about the so called expansion of the Universe. Why do we not expand with it?
If everything expanded equally, we would not notice a thing. Why do we stay the same "size" whilst the Universe expands. Perhaps it is not expanding.

Why is it only the distance apart which increases?

IG2007

#### Geomartian

Time as a constant is just an assumption.

Let us use a very tiny low mass clock. The radioactive decay of an isotope in interstellar space. How about using Super Nova SN1987a as the source for our isotopic clocks?

The star detonates releasing all kinds of short lived isotopes. A bright flash then tapering down for a long time.

As the star’s mass spreads through space the isotopes enter space where the gravitational field is weakening approaching the Milgrom acceleration 1.2e-10 m s2 .

The mass of these particles is too small to shield them from the local rate of time. The emptier the space 1.2e-10ms< the higher the rate of time.

SN1987a begins to brighten. This is blamed on the collision of the supernova front with matter that had been previously released. A molecular collision.

I suggest a different interpretation. Those radioactive isotopes produced by the detonation have entered (emptier) space with a higher rate of time. SN1987a brightens because the rate of radioactive decay has increased.

All of those tiny atomic clocks are ticking a lot faster. Those isotopes are burning faster and being consumed over a shorter period of our local time.

The total energy output increases across a wide spectrum. But the x-ray spectrum is the most interesting.

IG2007

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
So different events would give different figures which could correlate with a standard. What is your point?

IG2007

#### Geomartian

The X-Ray output indicates an increase in energy radiation like gamma rays from nuclear decay. The high 5-30um output is thermal heat which is likely from collision (obeying black body or thermal radiation).

This does suggest that there has been some increase in collisions but that is only part of the story. The increasing X-Rays suggest that gamma ray production from nuclear decay has increased. These gamma rays appear to be encountering denser matter rather than escaping (no direct gamma ray readings in this chart) so the decay signature is shown as increasing X-Rays.

SN1987a is an excellent example of how an increasing time rate can become visible by the accelerated decay of nuclear isotopes.

This (SN1987A) supernova’s energy output increases after the isotope’s debris field has moved into faster time rate space. The rising energy spectra indicates increasing nuclear decay as much as it does collision.

Catastrophe

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
I don't quite get how did you know that there's an increasing time rate rather than increase in collisions?

#### Geomartian

When the Star explodes it created a lot of short lived isotopes. Isotopes with half-lives of 10’s to 100’s of years are the ones we are interested in. The total radiation output from all these isotopes went down as expected.

Nuclear decay is considered by orthodoxy to be a constant (geochronology is based on this stability).

As time passed (several years) this trend started to reverse. The X-Rays are not consistent with collisions. Collisions produce heat and heat has a black body curve to it. The higher the photon energy the higher the black body temperature would be. X-Rays (0.5 to 3KV) cannot be produced in the quantities observed by impacts at the measured velocities. The heat output at the (5-30um) wavelengths and the X-Rays at (0.5 to 3KV) show two different processes.

In a constant time rate of one, the X-Rays would have continued to decrease without pause. The collisions could explain minute amounts of X-Ray production but nothing like what is being observed.

If nuclear decay is constant, then where is this massive increase in X-Rays coming from? This increase is definitely not coming from the collisions.

The key phrase is half-life. Speed up time and the nuclear decay rate increases (from the viewpoint of an outside observer). The isotopes are nuclear clocks with only one variable, time. The rate of time has been cranked up so that the total radiation has increased by 2 or more orders.

Without direct gamma ray measurements, we can’t assume that the entire increase in X-Rays was due to increased nuclear decay. Some of the gamma rays may have been escaping without generating X-Rays until dense matter was encountered. Nuclear decay produces gamma rays which have to run into something before they down convert to the measured X-Rays. The increase we are seeing is an increase in gamma ray production. It is also an increase in gamma ray capture (with X-Ray production) in a higher density (dust cloud?) environment.

Time has sped up nuclear decay but because the X-Ray signal is complex and indirect, we don’t know how much the rate of time has increased.

#### Geomartian

If a large planet or star were to pass through SN1987A’s glowing debris cloud it would be surrounded by a dark volume of space where the isotope decay rate has slowed down with increased gravity.

The effects of time rate change can be detected by experiments within this Solar System.

#### Kabone

Lots of really good concepts here. I still cannot tell if time is nothing but a concept. If a theory breaks down as you start to examine it from a higher ‘elevation’ I don’t see how the theory is viable. Entropy and chaos are built in. Without such universii would be eternal and I just don’t see that being possible . Considering the original question, time is nothing more than for one object to move into the same spot vacated by another object. Taking into account the infinite, time becomes irrelevant

IG2007

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Lots of really good concepts here. I still cannot tell if time is nothing but a concept. If a theory breaks down as you start to examine it from a higher ‘elevation’ I don’t see how the theory is viable. Entropy and chaos are built in. Without such universii would be eternal and I just don’t see that being possible . Considering the original question, time is nothing more than for one object to move into the same spot vacated by another object. Taking into account the infinite, time becomes irrelevant

#### Kabone

Apologies. I was rushing through that post hitting on points I read previously. I'll be more thoughtful in the future. You folks deserve better.

#### wingedhippo

Time is such a misunderstood question that I hope that, between us, we may shed some new light.
I have already done it. See:
I would like to kick off on the nature of space time which we bandy around so glibly. My problem with time as a 4th dimension is that it is so unlike the 'first three' dimensions.
Time is a concept similarly as its synonyms eg motion, change. It exists inseparably with matter (that is in constant motion) whereas space is a physical reality. Thus time cannot marry space.
As Wiki states: Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that requires a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. How does this meld into space-time? Is space-time an outdated concept?
In science/physics, we deal with objects. Entropy/quantity does not belong to them. There is no arrow of time but time/motion (of an object) can have its direction when changing its position which can be represented by means of the vector.