Time and Distance...

[thejamppa]

Does time give relevance and meaning for distance?

If we take time off from equasion, how does that affect to distance? Since without time from point a to b is immediately as is from point a to z.

Does time really give all the meaning there is for distance and without time distance becomes irrelevant?

I've been wondering since my big brother asked this and I've never found any good solution to it. Maybe someone can come up good answer for it.

[LodeHacker]

I've also thought about this and this is what I've currently got:

(Let's assume) there is no specific speed x. We have point a and point b. Let's call distance y. Because x is not fixed, travelling from a to b (distance y) can take x[1] time, but travelling back from b to a (same distance y) can take x[2] time. x[1] != x[2], this means time is not in direct relation to distance.

Take this graph as an example:


If speed is specified though, the same distance will require the same amount of time to travel, but if there is no time, you are right. It's happening immediately and this means point a to b is same as point a to z or point h to v. Because of this, distance loses its definition because time a+z = a+b.

I think you don't get what I'm saying because neither do I

[jessekopelman]

Does time give relevance and meaning for distance?

If by meaning and relevance we are talking about from a human perspective, then yes. Of course, that makes sense given that time is a construct specifically created enable a certain perceptual model of the physical universe. People like to think of time as a 4th dimension, but this is not correct. The real dimensions of space are things you can move through of your own volition, both "forwards" and "backwards". You cannot move through time of your own volition. Of course, people would like to believe differently (that time is an actual dimension) for two reasons: First, it would allow time travel, which is conceptually a very cool thing. Second, it would allow the proof of causality, which is very important to the philosophical underpinnings of many peoples' view of reality.

Does time really give all the meaning there is for distance and without time distance becomes irrelevant?

I think this is a slightly different question. Time is what makes distance relevant from a human perspective, but distance can have meaning for things that effect us while being outside our perceptual model of reality. Distance is the primary driver of the strength of The Fundamental Forces (E/M and nuclear*). While it is easy to model The Forces mathematically, it is very hard to fit them into our conceptual framework of reality. What is a photon? It is not really a particle (no intrinsic mass) nor does it always behave like one. It comes into existence moving at a constant speed (for a given medium), so time is not helpful in understanding its behavior. However, when we use a wave model to conceptualize it, distance is very very important.


* Just as I argue that Time is not an actual dimension, I will argue that Gravity is not a Fundamental Force. Unlike the actual Forces, gravity is driven by mass relationships, not distance. More importantly, despite a huge effort no one has discovered a graviton (the propagator of gravity). If gravity were a Force, it would have a propagator. Einstein had a perfectly good explanation for what gravity actually is. The reason people want to believe that gravity is a Force is because it allows for cool things, like anti-gravity, that require there to be gravitons (and anti-gravitons). Basically, this is analogous to the desire to have a dimension of time to support the notion of time travel.

[Reachable]

Distance means time irrespective of the the amount of time it takes to travel between two locations. Let me explain:

We talk about the "speed of light", but that can really be said to be a measure of the relationship between distance and time. There is a discrepancy (for want of a better word) of time of 1 second for every 300,000 kilometers of distance. (For example, that's demonstrated by the delay in radio communication between the astronauts on the moon and Mission Control on Earth.) This is popularly ascribed to be the travel time of electromagnetic 'waves'/'massless' photon particles between the two locations, but such things become absurd when looked at closely.*

Without this discrepancy of time, distance would be meaningless. (It's something you just have to ponder to understand, and you have to do it every time you think about it.) When you're looking at a distant object, you're not seeing it "as it was" but as it is now with the discrepancy of time.

The Speed of Light in a vacuum appears to be a constant throughout the universe, but if you look at it mathematically it's a variable. Imagine a universe with a different Speed of Light and the meaning of distance would change along with the gross properties of mass.


*EDIT: I should probably elaborate on this sentence. We all know that there's no medium for the 'waves' to travel through, no 'ether', nor does Einstein's Theory justify the reality of light waves. Give it up, guys. What we see are the oscillations, the atomic and subatomic events that are done and undone, but they don't 'travel' to get to us. As far as the particles go, we perceive the energy in "quanta" steps -- we can't see an infinitely small expression of energy (we can perceive a quanta of 1, but we can't perceive .92 of that, nor can we see 1.34 of that. We can only see 1 times, 2 times, 3 times, etc. Our instruments can be no better at it than our senses -- it's a property of mass detecting mass.

[jessekopelman]

*EDIT: I should probably elaborate on this sentence. We all know that there's no medium for the 'waves' to travel through, no 'ether', nor does Einstein's Theory justify the reality of light waves. Give it up, guys. What we see are the oscillations, the atomic and subatomic events that are done and undone, but they don't 'travel' to get to us.

I don't know. This is pretty much a semantics issue. It all depends what you mean by travel. If we eliminate our "time" construct, I would agree that nothing travels. But since our models of reality do use Time, it is ok to talk about things traveling. In the same vein it is quite alright to consider that there is indeed an Ether composed of the potential of all quantum particles. We can link changes in energy state to our Force propagators and those we have "particles traveling through the Ether." Is this reality? No, it is merely a model that ties what is actually happening into a framework that is comprehensible in human terms. There is nothing wrong with such abstraction, as long as we understand the parameters of the conversation. Indeed it is quite useful, as exemplified by Chemistry has a huge degree of abstraction from what is actually happening on a subatomic level and yet provides useful models and replicable predictions.

[Reachable]

I think the main idea is that it's always been assumed that, because a distant object appears illuminated, that the illumination made its way from there to here.

Instead, picture electromagnetism as the "conscience", so to speak, of the universe, how all the objects maintain communication despite expressing distance from each other.

Otherwise, you're dealing with a situation where all that is perceived is the past, which puts its possibility of having a manifest existence now at the same level as that which exists only in memory. That's crazy.

I think perhaps the cause of all of this misunderstanding is dust. Picture a dark ancient temple where a 'ray' of light streams in through a window, sparkling in front of you. What you're seeing is none other than dust, but it gave people the idea that the light itself was made up of particles.

The picture we have now is of a very disunited universe.

[colm]

strange question. if there is a point a to b there is a distance, you need time to connect a path.
if you are thinking of a circle, sphere, and a to b is diameter, time could be taken away, there is no a to b, it is one.
if not a circle, is it a straight line? a warped light? what is this person trying to ask?!

[Olle P]

... Otherwise, you're dealing with a situation where all that is perceived is the past, which puts its possibility of having a manifest existence now at the same level as that which exists only in memory. That's crazy.

I have absolutely no problem with this.
1. Signal transmission takes time.
2. Perception is the result of signal transmission and processing.
1+2 => Perception is always delayed, and you never perceive things as they are, but how they were some time ago.

If we really want to mess things up mentally, let's apply the theories of quantum physics!
Then everything related to time, distance and speed just become a matter of probabilities. You never for sure can tell where, when and at what speed a particle was at any given instant.
To quote an unknown thinker: "Quantum physics: The dreams that stuff is made of."

Regarding Jesse's comment that time isn't the 4th dimension, I disagree.
The latest findings in mathematical models of the Universe state that there must be even more dimensions than that. The 5th dimension is imaginary time (orthogonal to time) and then there probably are at least six more dimensions who's name and properties I'm not familiar with.
Of course this is a field of ongoing research, and new hypothesises will keep coming...

Cheers
Olle, MSc

[xan_user]

I must keep my distance from this thread, as I don't have the time.

[jessekopelman]

Regarding Jesse's comment that time isn't the 4th dimension, I disagree.
The latest findings in mathematical models of the Universe state that there must be even more dimensions than that. The 5th dimension is imaginary time (orthogonal to time) and then there probably are at least six more dimensions who's name and properties I'm not familiar with.
Of course this is a field of ongoing research, and new hypothesises will keep coming...

I am not an expert by any stretch, but my understanding is that these extra dimensions (including time, as I already mentioned) are needed to maintain causality. I was trying to make a distinction between real and imaginary dimensions. We need an imaginary number SQRT(-1) to have a "unified theory of mathematics", so it is ok to have imaginary dimensions to achieve a unified theory of physics. What I was trying to get at, in the case of time, is the idea that just because something is part of a functioning model does not mean that it is "real". Just because we use the construct of time to model the universe does not in anyway give us the ability to travel through time, much to the chagrin of multitudes of SciFi fans.

[Reachable]

What I was trying to get at, in the case of time, is the idea that just because something is part of a functioning model does not mean that it is "real".

Yeah, that applies to the first three dimensions, too. They say the first three dimensions are:

(1) Above and below
(2) Left and right
(3) In front and in back


How purely imaginary those are! You move, and the three dimensions of the universe move with you. Narcissistic, too. Humans have three dimensions (head to foot, arm to arm, nose to tail) but trees (for instance) don't.

[jessekopelman]

What I was trying to get at, in the case of time, is the idea that just because something is part of a functioning model does not mean that it is "real".

Yeah, that applies to the first three dimensions, too. They say the first three dimensions are:

(1) Above and below
(2) Left and right
(3) In front and in back


How purely imaginary those are! You move, and the three dimensions of the universe move with you. Narcissistic, too. Humans have three dimensions (head to foot, arm to arm, nose to tail) but trees (for instance) don't.

I don't agree with you here. How do the 3 physical dimensions move with you? Don't confuse your perception, with things that can be measured -- changing perspective may make something look closer or farther away but will not alter measurements of distance. How are trees not 3 Dimensional? If they had less than 3 dimensions, there would be angles from which, despite having an unobstructed view, they would disappear. It is quite fair to say that time is an artifact of the way we perceive reality, but you cannot say that about the 3 Dimensions.

Again, the distinction I am making between time and the 3 "real" dimensions is that you can purposefully change your coordinates relative to the real dimensions (also known as moving ), but not time. No matter how much energy applied, one cannot change his position in time. This is why time is not a "real" dimension.

[Reachable]

What I was trying to get at, in the case of time, is the idea that just because something is part of a functioning model does not mean that it is "real".

Yeah, that applies to the first three dimensions, too. They say the first three dimensions are:

(1) Above and below
(2) Left and right
(3) In front and in back


How purely imaginary those are! You move, and the three dimensions of the universe move with you. Narcissistic, too. Humans have three dimensions (head to foot, arm to arm, nose to tail) but trees (for instance) don't.

I don't agree with you here. How do the 3 physical dimensions move with you? Don't confuse your perception, with things that can be measured -- changing perspective may make something look closer or farther away but will not alter measurements of distance. How are trees not 3 Dimensional? If they had less than 3 dimensions, there would be angles from which, despite having an unobstructed view, they would disappear. It is quite fair to say that time is an artifact of the way we perceive reality, but you cannot say that about the 3 Dimensions.

Again, the distinction I am making between time and the 3 "real" dimensions is that you can purposefully change your coordinates relative to the real dimensions (also known as moving ), but not time. No matter how much energy applied, one cannot change his position in time. This is why time is not a "real" dimension.

Humans think of the world as having 3 dimensions because of the 3 "axes" or planes that their bodies have. Trees have a round trunk and they branch out more or less equally in all directions, so if they somehow wanted to they couldn't orient themselves to their surroundings using the notion of left and right (or front and back).

The point I'm trying to make is that the three dimensions are subjective to the observer. Left/right and in front/in back depend on where you are standing and which direction you're facing. Even above/below changes if you walk a step.

You can measure any object objectively in terms of 3 dimensions, but the three dimensions themselves can't meet the test of being an actual feature of the universe.

[Aris]

It all depends on your personal perception.

If you are the one who is moving through space while time has stopped, from your point of view time will continue normally, but for others around you it will be perceived that space from A to B becomes instantaneous.

Its like when you reach the speed of light. Someone looking at you perceives that you are traveling back in time, but your own perception is that time proceeds like normal.

[jessekopelman]

You can measure any object objectively in terms of 3 dimensions, but the three dimensions themselves can't meet the test of being an actual feature of the universe.

No, you are confusing the Perceptual 3 Dimensions with the Spatial 3 Dimensions. For humans these happen to be the same thing, but that does not mean that if your perception was different there would be more or less than 3 dimensions. When we are talking physical science, there is no point in dealing with one of these dimensions discreetly. No matter what you call them, all physical objects have exactly 3 dimensions. A tree and a person both have exactly 3 dimensions, regardless of how you wish to perceive them. In the realm of maths we can consider objects with a different amount of dimensions, but that is a different subject.

Of course The 3 Dimensions (again this should be taken as a single concept, not 3 separate features) pass the test of being an actual feature of the universe. There is no proof of anything that does not feature 3 Spatial Dimensions. String Theory does differ from this, but it is unproven and thus far unprovable. Indeed, the biggest challenge in String Theory research is coming up with some way to even go about proving it.

[spookmineer]

Its like when you reach the speed of light. Someone looking at you perceives that you are traveling back in time, but your own perception is that time proceeds like normal.

People getting close to the speed of light (or close to a very big gravity field) appear to act slower but will never seem to travel back in time.
The idea in the theory of relativity is that mechanics are not subject to any observer, the mechanics stay the same.
So, a person getting close to the speed of light also sees "us" acting slower. Central to the theory is also that they both measure the same speed of light.

Some consequences:
Two "spaceships" moving away from eachother, each with almost the speed of light, will still be able to see eachother. Their relative speed is not bigger than the speed of light.
Objects moving relative to you, appear to be shorter.
"Time" on objects moving relative to you appears to be slower than yours.

The "twin paradox" is, a paradox. You can't decide which observer is stationary just by measuring which clock runs faster. Both observers observe that the clock of the other is running slower, because simultaneousness is relative as well: when A sees his own clock 1 hour later, he sees clock B at half an hour, but for B it appears that at his half hour, clock A has only moved a quarter of an hour.
One of the twins does age slower, there are several attempts to explain this but the easiest is lenght contraction.