If I understand you correctly you're saying that we can't really prove that Time, Space or Matter really exists, which does rather neatly solve the conundrum of where the Universe came from. It didn't. Ha, you think you got problems, I never posted this.
Well, if time is a psychological effect then anything else we measure is as well. We have have invented the thing we call distance. We gave it a name, and use arbitrary lengths of sticks to measure it. We broke the measuring stick down to even smaller fractions. We invented the thing we call mass. We gave it a name, and invented an arbitrary scale to measure it using the gravitational force. We invented the thing we call temperature. We gave it a name and arbitrarily use the triple point and boiling point of water to measure it. There's a difference between equating what we use to measure something as opposed to whether that something exists. We learn that temperature exists because when we were little we put our hand on the stove even though Mommy told us not to, long before we learned about Celsius or Fahrenheit. We learned about mass through acceleration of large rocks vs small rocks in the schoolyard, before we knew what a kilogram was. We learned about time in preschool when nap time came after lunch, long before we knew lunch was at noon and naptime was at 1pm. More importantly, if time were simply a psychological effect, why is it not constant in every frame of reference?
I'm aboard the multiverse theory so time and mass and space and energy, etc. are all infinite. None of it makes any sense to me...
While I agree that time as a unit of measure is similar to other units for distance, mass or energy, there is one fundamental difference. Distance, mass and energy can be defined without reference to other units. An inch is a defined length, a pound is a defined mass, and a joule is a defined amount of energy. Time, on the other hand, cannot be defined without reference to another unit of measure. A second is currently defined by the vibration of a cæsium atom which involves energy. Before that it was defined by the orbit of Earth about the sun, which involves distance. While other physical properties can exist without time, time cannot exist without changing other physical properties.
Energy is not a fundamental measurement, and requires units of time. A Joule is defined as kilogram - meters squared per SECOND squared. We can dismiss that outright. Length is dependent upon velocity, i.e. we need time units to measure length correctly. Also, a meter is defined by how far light travels in 1/C seconds, so even our standard measuring stick uses time. Mass measurement (inertial mass) requires an acceleration to measure. That could be a collision, which of course requires measurement of the resulting momenta (which requires time). The acceleration caused by a gravitational field could be used as well. For both inertial and gravitational measurements we need to define a "measuring stick" object to compare with. When we do that, both special and general relativity come into play. It is interesting that the kilogram is the only SI unit that is not dependent upon a reproducible process, but still based on an arbitrary "measuring stick" object. I agree with your statement that measuring time requires an observable system (not other units), but so does every other measurement you mentioned.
You're confusing how we measure properties with the properties themselves. An object can have length, mass and energy in any instant regardless of the units we use to measure them, but it cannot have time unless one of those properties changes.
No I'm not confusing anything at all. True, they can have all those properties regardless of the units we measure them in, but it absolutely important HOW we measure them. For instance, HOW do you measure energy without using time? How can we measure the length of something without either a) a mass b) two masses with spatial separation? How can an object have mass without length? It's all interrelated, and time is part of that interrelation of things we measure in the universe.
Time as we know it is based on Earth's behavior but if we spend some time on Jupiter 'our' time won't make any sense. Nor will it make any sense at any other location in the Universe. So how would 'Universe' time be calculated? Instead of repeating intervals of time would we start at the BB and just have an infinite linear time line? Maybe some measurement based on the expansion rate of the Universe? Maybe each galaxy would be a different time zone? Or maybe each star has it's own time system? Seems that regarding this thread and if 'time' is real, in a controlled system like Earth, we can establish precise time and everyone knows exactly when to meet for happy-hour, but once we leave Earth, time is still real but within an entirely different system...
I'm not saying that properties like energy, length and mass are not interrelated, but I can measure one without knowing anything about the others. Time, on the other hand, cannot be measured without knowing how at least one other property is changing. There is another difference in how we perceive all of these properties. While one can experience various energies, lengths and masses, there is only one moment in time that anyone has ever experienced, "now". What we call "the past" is simply the effects of previous moments while "the future" is only the probability of future moments. Until someone can demonstrate how we can experience more than one "now", time will remain just a mathematical construct that makes measuring change possible.
Any physical process can be used to measure time. There is no "unversal" time, as even if you used the same physical process as a "clock", it depends on where the clock is and how fast it is moving. A clock on Mount Everest runs faster than a clock on the bottom of the ocean.
Your post doesn't make sense to me, how do you even define energy without time? You can't measure mass without some kind of interaction either. Mass is just a mathematical construct that makes measuring inertia or gravity possible. You need velocity to measure length properly, and measuring velocity requires a clock. Length is just a mathematical construct that measures the dimension of mass. As being only one moment in time that anyone has ever experienced, what does that mean? Everything we see is in the past, not the present. Some things are further in the past than others.
Again, just because how we measure properties is limited by time doesn't make those properties themselves dependent on time. At any given moment, an object has a specific energy, mass, and size regardless of our ability to measure them. However, we cannot assign it a value of time without knowing something about one of these properties. While I can freely return to any point in space, I cannot do the same in time. I like to think of it as an old movie film. While most people think the whole film represents reality, it is only the single frame before the lamp that really exists.
Sure there will be a few nanoseconds difference in time but I was speaking more general in terms of humans observing the time on their clocks on Earth versus using these same clocks on Jupiter or anywhere else. What does a 24 hour digital watch tell us on Jupiter? So this means what?
Sure, it's all related to some physical process, and that's arbitrary. A 24 hour (Earth hour) clock doesn't really make sense on Jupiter, as a day on Jupiter is only about 10 Earth hours long. A Jovian (??) could use a 24 hour clock too, just the Jovian hour would be shorter than our hour. As Earth creatures we are governed by the circadian cycle, so maybe on Jupiter we'd want an Earth based clock. Obviously we can't survive on Jupiter, but it would be interesting to see how the circadian cycle is affected.
Once gain, you can't even define energy without time, so saying something has energy without any dependence on time is meaningless. You can't just throw those words around without considering their meaning. Why don't you offer a definition of energy that is independent of time? Even mass and energy are defined by frequency at the quantum level, and without time there's no such thing as frequency. Everything that is, is dependent upon time.
Temperature is simply a measure of the average kinetic or thermal energy of a system and yet it's units, Kelvin, have no time in them. While energy cannot manifest itself without changing the system, which involves time, it is still there none the less at every instant. You are saying that mass and energy are dependent upon time, Look at it that the other way and time is dependent on mass and energy. You get the same results, just from a different perspective.
If the circadian cycle stems from evolution of man, then to change the rhythm would require another long period of adjustment but we would adjust while our Earth clocks would not. Even on Earth we have a different time in each time zone although looking from the Moon down to Earth we could guess it should have the same time no matter where one is located on Earth. Going back to your circadian cycle, if humans have a recurring rhythm which is based primarily on when we have daylight where we are located, then it really doesn't make any difference what time it says on our clocks. It it's 4PM where I am in northern CA and there is daylight, why can't it also be 4PM in Madrid except their 4PM would be dark? So a huge asteroid strikes Earth in my area at 4PM yet in Madrid they will claim the asteroid struck at 2am...who is correct?
The amount of kinetic energy that an object has depends upon two variables: the mass of the object and the speed of the object. You cannot determine speed without time. Thermal energy is just the kinetic energy from the movement of electrons, atoms, molecules...and you cannot have movement without time...
That's why we have UTC (or GMT), to coordinate time worldwide. There is no "incorrect" time really, like mass and energy, we measure it arbitrarily.
