Re: Consistent definitions of time

From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 06/02/04 

Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:48:11 +0000 (UTC)

"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0406011031.791733ce@posting.google.com...
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c9ddbc$eje$5@titan.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > > > The question: How do you propose to use that definition to
> > quantify
> > an
> > > > > interval of elapsed time?
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer:
> > > > >
> > > > > Change creates time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Change is also how the mechanism of a clock produces a
> > measurement.
> > > > > This measurement is a relative interval which is the
> > quantification
> > you
> > > > > desire.
> > > >
> > > > But you do not seem to realise that the kind of change which
> > occurs in
> > > > a clock is a very special kind of change, and it is that very
> > feature
> > > > which is used to define the measurement of time.
> > >
> > > Please explain how it is special.
> >
> > It has to be perfectly repetitive.
>
> When I say "Change creates time" I mean change at the most
fundamental
> level of nature. There are four interactions in nature
> (electromagnetism, gravitation, and the strong and weak nuclear
> forces). Are you saying that the changes that result from these
forces
> are different from interaction to interaction somehow?

No.

> And are you saying that clocks we use in experiments are ideal?

No

> Or
> does perfectly repetitive have some other meaning?

It means a motion which repeats itself perfectly.

> I should also note that if my defintion that "Time is present in the
> context of change" is wrong

It is neither wrong nor right, since it is just a series of weasel
words.

> then you would be arguing against the
> Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

I do not argue for or against the Copenhagen interpretation.

> In this interpretation reality is
> created by measurement and measurement always requires change.
Unless
> time does not exist in reality, then time too is created by
> measurement, or more generally speaking, by change.

That is the most novel and stupid remark about the Copenhagen
interpretation that I have seen for quite a while.

Franz

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Consistent definitions of time
    ... There are four interactions in nature ... Are you saying that the changes that result from these ... > I do not argue for or against the Copenhagen interpretation. ... >> created by measurement and measurement always requires change. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Baby RDLA!!!
    ... The absurd attempt to quantify the unquantifiable is an essential part ... I now believe that this would be an extremely difficult feat to accomplish. ... Were such a measurement of intelligence to be done, the findings would be of scientific interest—at least to me! ... one reason why I have moved away from the creation of such measures is that they may lead to new forms of labeling and stigmatization. ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Scientifically valid definitions.
    ... > AllYou: Time does not measure motion. ... > not measure motion, nor quantify it. ... Any such measurement of motion requires at least two points to define an interval, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Math & physics.
    ... tuning Gamma Ray ... and therefore that any outcome of a measurement of either ... The QM maniacs actually think these laws of nature can be violated. ... The external world exists at an instant in time as an array of particles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Math & physics.
    ... tuning Gamma Ray ... and therefore that any outcome of a measurement of either ... The QM maniacs actually think these laws of nature can be violated. ... The external world exists at an instant in time as an array of particles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)