Re: Is 'time' time or is it not.
- From: Marcel LeBel <lebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:11:29 +0000 (UTC)
RHNL wrote:
> Simply put: Is 'time' a constant or a variable?
>
> If it is a 'constant' why is it applied differently
> in QM and GR?
>
> If it is a 'variable', why do we call it 'time'?
>
The word "Time" has many meanings.If it is used without specifying
the meaning, it will effectively have all the meanings and none in
particular. In order to go around the problem of using such a rich word,
one has to add a specifying word to it, or explain it.
At the beginning of important theories/ body of work in fundamental
physics, since nobody knows exactly what Time is, this is one of the
things one has to a) declare/recognize his ignorance about and b)
explain what meaning he chooses to give or accept for the said word. For
that reason, "Time" was and should still be part of the fundamental
assumptions of any theory of physics. You should be able to find what
meaning of Time was chosen in the foundational statements of GR and QM.
In my opinion, it is important to distinguish between our experience of
Time and what can said about Time from these experiences. The following
properties can be inferred; dynamic nature, spontaneous evolution,
universal in presence and local in value, affects the rate of evolution
of events including clocks, .. etc.
If you believe this point of view is worth exploring,
my website is www.angelfire.com/ak/mlebel (old)
marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove particle
.
- References:
- Is 'time' time or is it not.
- From: RHNL
- Is 'time' time or is it not.
- Prev by Date: Re: Maxwell's theory is not Poincare invariant. was: Mossbauer effect
- Next by Date: Re: Superposed observers (was No new Einstein)
- Previous by thread: Re: Is 'time' time or is it not.
- Next by thread: Re: Is 'time' time or is it not.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
