I am busy. That is no time
The article entitled " Scientists hypothesized that the measurement of time does not exist" caught my eye.
The name can easily be confused, because the hypothesis of the non-existence of a time measurement is very much contrary to the existence of a wristwatch or watch in a mobile phone — publicly available time measuring devices. From the text it becomes clear what the dimension-dimension meant, not the measurment-dimension.
one)
')
The author of the note refers to scientific articles, so a feeling of seriousness is being created. “In two recent works (one has already been published and the second is about to arrive) in the journal Physics Essays, Amrit Sorley, David Fiscarletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Bistra Research Center in Ptuj, Slovenia, described in more detail that all this means. "Unfortunately, the full text of this masterpiece cannot be downloaded for free (http: //physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem/v24/i2/p3 ...). It is especially surprising that, contrary to the practice generally accepted among physicists, the authors of the article did not put it in free access in the archive of electronic preprints . Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the text of the notes and theses (the author of the note apparently also read only theses).
2)
The note says:
"These scientists explain their theory in the following way:
We usually consider time to be an absolute physical quantity, which, moreover, is an independent variable (for example, t is often laid on the horizontal axis in graphs that demonstrate the evolution of a physical system). But in reality, we never measure t itself. We measure the properties of an object: frequency, speed, etc. In other words, there really is a change in the properties of an object and (figuratively) movement of a clock hand; and we compare the first to the second in order to measure the properties of the object. t itself is a mathematical value and does not exist in reality. "
As far as I know, physics considers, for the most part, quantities that are measurable experimentally. That is, the definition of a physical quantity is the task of the method of its measurement (agreed for various observers). In this case, time is what is measured by hours. Then you can specify what a watch is, how it is arranged and why the measurement results will be consistent. That is, real time is not a mathematical value, but on the contrary, is the result of measurement. The operation of many devices (for example, GPS) is based on accurate measurement of time intervals. The most careful consideration of the methods of measuring time intervals in classical physics was given by A. Einstein and led to a revolution in physics.
In addition, all the arguments of the authors can be applied to space, saying that there is no space, there is only the order of the arrangement of material bodies relative to each other. So what's the point? The concepts of space and time, on the contrary, make the description of reality easier.
3)
“In their last work, scientists write:“ The Minkowski space is not 3D + T, but 4D ”.”
3D + T recording means that the interval between events (for example, collisions) in the space of time is S ^ 2 = c ^ 2 (t2-t1) ^ 2-R ^ 2, where c is the speed of light, t2-t1 is the time between two events, R is the distance between two events. Time makes a positive contribution to the interval, and space is negative. For the usual Euclidean space, the interval is always positive. The Minkowski space is well studied, and a simple change of notation seems meaningless to me.
four)
“The point of view, according to which, time is a physical quantity, where material changes take place, has been replaced by a more convenient time, where time is simply an order of change of matter.”
This phrase just does not make sense.
“This point of view fits better with the real world, and gives more possibilities in describing instant physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer in an EPR experiment — that is, those that occur directly in space.”
Return Long Range? Why not, but where is the evidence? So far, the postulate of the speed of light, as the maximum speed of transmission of information and energy, withstood all experimental tests.
"As a physicist Enrico Prati is noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) are clearly defined without the concept of absolute time."
Well, let's write the Hamilton equation:
Derivative of the time coordinate = partial derivative of the Hamiltonian with respect to the momentum;
The derivative of the pulse in time = is the partial derivative of the Hamiltonian in the coordinate;
The fact that time is a parameter along the trajectory in the phase space and we can choose any other parameter does not mean that there is no time. For movement, you need to change the values ​​of any parameter. And the choice of parameter corresponds to the choice of calibration hours.
“Other scientists note that the mathematical model of space-time does not correspond to physical reality, and suggest that the timeless“ state space ”is a more precise definition.”
Perhaps these scientists are happy ...
five)
"The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space, i.e. the fundamental physical entity in which the experiment takes place - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist. An example is the Coulomb experiment, since mathematically it uses only space. "
In a real Coulomb experiment, time exists. First, the experimenter charges the balls, then the system comes to balance, the forces are measured. Of course, nothing is moving in balance, and time, as if it is not moving, but the whole laboratory revolves around the sun with the Earth. And then, the experiment will be completed at some point in time.
Conclusion.
There is still a lot of that. The note is full of mistakes, and scientists are trying to change old ideas into new clothes (introducing their new definitions, etc.). Of course, on small scales that are not yet available to us in the experiment, the usual concept of time probably will not work, just as our intuitive ideas about time do not work in the special theory of relativity. But we must begin not with speculative hypotheses, but with experiments and observations.
The name can easily be confused, because the hypothesis of the non-existence of a time measurement is very much contrary to the existence of a wristwatch or watch in a mobile phone — publicly available time measuring devices. From the text it becomes clear what the dimension-dimension meant, not the measurment-dimension.
one)
')
The author of the note refers to scientific articles, so a feeling of seriousness is being created. “In two recent works (one has already been published and the second is about to arrive) in the journal Physics Essays, Amrit Sorley, David Fiscarletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Bistra Research Center in Ptuj, Slovenia, described in more detail that all this means. "Unfortunately, the full text of this masterpiece cannot be downloaded for free (http: //physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem/v24/i2/p3 ...). It is especially surprising that, contrary to the practice generally accepted among physicists, the authors of the article did not put it in free access in the archive of electronic preprints . Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the text of the notes and theses (the author of the note apparently also read only theses).
2)
The note says:
"These scientists explain their theory in the following way:
We usually consider time to be an absolute physical quantity, which, moreover, is an independent variable (for example, t is often laid on the horizontal axis in graphs that demonstrate the evolution of a physical system). But in reality, we never measure t itself. We measure the properties of an object: frequency, speed, etc. In other words, there really is a change in the properties of an object and (figuratively) movement of a clock hand; and we compare the first to the second in order to measure the properties of the object. t itself is a mathematical value and does not exist in reality. "
As far as I know, physics considers, for the most part, quantities that are measurable experimentally. That is, the definition of a physical quantity is the task of the method of its measurement (agreed for various observers). In this case, time is what is measured by hours. Then you can specify what a watch is, how it is arranged and why the measurement results will be consistent. That is, real time is not a mathematical value, but on the contrary, is the result of measurement. The operation of many devices (for example, GPS) is based on accurate measurement of time intervals. The most careful consideration of the methods of measuring time intervals in classical physics was given by A. Einstein and led to a revolution in physics.
In addition, all the arguments of the authors can be applied to space, saying that there is no space, there is only the order of the arrangement of material bodies relative to each other. So what's the point? The concepts of space and time, on the contrary, make the description of reality easier.
3)
“In their last work, scientists write:“ The Minkowski space is not 3D + T, but 4D ”.”
3D + T recording means that the interval between events (for example, collisions) in the space of time is S ^ 2 = c ^ 2 (t2-t1) ^ 2-R ^ 2, where c is the speed of light, t2-t1 is the time between two events, R is the distance between two events. Time makes a positive contribution to the interval, and space is negative. For the usual Euclidean space, the interval is always positive. The Minkowski space is well studied, and a simple change of notation seems meaningless to me.
four)
“The point of view, according to which, time is a physical quantity, where material changes take place, has been replaced by a more convenient time, where time is simply an order of change of matter.”
This phrase just does not make sense.
“This point of view fits better with the real world, and gives more possibilities in describing instant physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer in an EPR experiment — that is, those that occur directly in space.”
Return Long Range? Why not, but where is the evidence? So far, the postulate of the speed of light, as the maximum speed of transmission of information and energy, withstood all experimental tests.
"As a physicist Enrico Prati is noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) are clearly defined without the concept of absolute time."
Well, let's write the Hamilton equation:
Derivative of the time coordinate = partial derivative of the Hamiltonian with respect to the momentum;
The derivative of the pulse in time = is the partial derivative of the Hamiltonian in the coordinate;
The fact that time is a parameter along the trajectory in the phase space and we can choose any other parameter does not mean that there is no time. For movement, you need to change the values ​​of any parameter. And the choice of parameter corresponds to the choice of calibration hours.
“Other scientists note that the mathematical model of space-time does not correspond to physical reality, and suggest that the timeless“ state space ”is a more precise definition.”
Perhaps these scientists are happy ...
five)
"The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space, i.e. the fundamental physical entity in which the experiment takes place - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist. An example is the Coulomb experiment, since mathematically it uses only space. "
In a real Coulomb experiment, time exists. First, the experimenter charges the balls, then the system comes to balance, the forces are measured. Of course, nothing is moving in balance, and time, as if it is not moving, but the whole laboratory revolves around the sun with the Earth. And then, the experiment will be completed at some point in time.
Conclusion.
There is still a lot of that. The note is full of mistakes, and scientists are trying to change old ideas into new clothes (introducing their new definitions, etc.). Of course, on small scales that are not yet available to us in the experiment, the usual concept of time probably will not work, just as our intuitive ideas about time do not work in the special theory of relativity. But we must begin not with speculative hypotheses, but with experiments and observations.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/120416/
All Articles