(May 9, 2011 at 7:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I mean subjective inasmuch as the effects of time dilation only apply to the person in question.

Not to time itself.

Which person is meaningfully in question, and how does the subjectivity effect this, when clocks on satellites are measured and found systemically and predicatably slower than identical clocks on the ground?

Untutored intuition about time gained through direct animal senses far too dull to detect relativistic effects is worth almost as little as the bible or koran in clarifying the basic properties of time and space.

I disagree. This is like saying that 'width' is not a dimension because it is actually just the order in which things are placed. Continuity also has nothing to do with it. Width, length, and height don't have continuity - they have the Planck length.

Forgive me if this is a boneheaded question -- my science-fu is distinctly weak -- but if we erase the concept of time dilation, don't we then inherit the problem of physical phenomena which should be strictly quantized being re-interpreted as varying continuously, depending on the gravitational environment, and that leads right back to the problem of explaining black-body radiation?

Quote:In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise....
Here, the researchers explain that the paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time.

Seriously? Zeno's paradox just arises from incorrect use of the word "never". The sum of the amount of time taken for each step in the "paradox" forms a convergent geometric series. So it's invalid to say that Achillles will never pass the tortoise, rather one should say that Achilles will not pass the tortoise before the time that the sum converges to.

---

It seems like these guys are just creating a false dichotomy. Time as the order of events OR as a "dimension" in a 3+1 spacetime. But there's no reason to think that the two should be mutually exclusive.

Perhaps you shouldn't be taking this too seriously, it's to be published in Physics Essays, which has something of a reputation for publishing odd or even outright silly papers which would have little to no chance of being published elsewhere.

apophenia Wrote:Forgive me if this is a boneheaded question -- my science-fu is distinctly weak -- but if we erase the concept of time dilation...

Time dilation is an observable physical phenomenon. They're not really suggesting getting rid of the concept of time dilation, they're just recasting it as changes in "the velocity of material change".

(May 9, 2011 at 2:24 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 9, 2011 at 7:55 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I mean subjective inasmuch as the effects of time dilation only apply to the person in question.

Not to time itself.

Which person is meaningfully in question, and how does the subjectivity effect this, when clocks on satellites are measured and found systemically and predicatably slower than identical clocks on the ground?

Untutored intuition about time gained through direct animal senses far too dull to detect relativistic effects is worth almost as little as the bible or koran in clarifying the basic properties of time and space.

Generally time dilation effects are illustrated using people.

The effects are the same regardless of whether you use a person or a clock.(or particles for that matter)

My point being that the effects could be explained not by time slowing down but the process's of the subject or object in question slowing down.

Remembering that one of the results of travelling at light speed is gaining infinite mass, that is sure to slow you down.

(May 10, 2011 at 7:20 am)Zen Badger Wrote: My point being that the effects could be explained not by time slowing down but the process's of the subject or object in question slowing down.

How would one distinguish between time "really" slowing down and time only appearing to slow due to the simultaneous slowing of clocks, biolgical functions etc?

(May 10, 2011 at 8:17 am)lilphil1989 Wrote: How would one distinguish between time "really" slowing down and time only appearing to slow due to the simultaneous slowing of clocks, biolgical functions etc?

Perhaps; If time was in fact slowing down one's perception of time would slow down inline with clocks, so any slowing of time would be unnoticeable, if time only seems to be slowing down we would be able to notice the disparity between our perception of time and the measure of a clock - This would however be indistinguishable from our perception speeding up and time remaining constant, something that happens on certain, ah, substances - everything seems to be moving extremely slowly as if time had slowed down around us.

Surely perception of time would be included within biological functions?

Sure, but then your example is moot because it wouldn't 'appear' to slow down.

(May 10, 2011 at 8:17 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(May 10, 2011 at 7:20 am)Zen Badger Wrote: My point being that the effects could be explained not by time slowing down but the process's of the subject or object in question slowing down.

How would one distinguish between time "really" slowing down and time only appearing to slow due to the simultaneous slowing of clocks, biolgical functions etc?

You can't, look at the twins paradox.

As far as the twin travelling at light is concerned time feels normal and any clock on the spacecraft will show the same. But as far as his brother is concerned he has slowed right down.

In the theory it is usually considered that time(as a seperate demension) has slowed down.

But it could be equally said that the physical interactions have been stretched out(a bit like red shift)

So it only appears that time has slowed down.