V. I. Melnikov
The notion “time” as known was used from time immemorial and is used now by all known civilizations. It is in the true sense of the word of vital necessity for everybody and in any time but it is as elusive as necessary.
“A man is worried of time mystery” . This idiom utmost laconic expresses the problem connected with the category of time. The mystery of this notion worried or made ponder over it many of ancient and modern thinkers. Элиаты, Pythagoreans, Plato, Плотин, Augustin, Aristotel, Heraclit, Zeno, Newton, Eiler, Leibniz, Einstein, Миньковский, A. Bergson, M. Heidegger, Я. Зельдович, И. Пригожин, К. Лазарев, А. Мостепаненко, С. Мейен, Ю. Молчанов, Н. Хасанов and others had been studying and solving this problem but till now the solution can not be acknowledged as satisfactory [39, 45, 65, 76, 77, 100, 101, 102, 104].
As a rule, the known definitions of a notion (a category precisely) “time” includes either uncertainty if principle (a “receptacle” of events, a form of matter existence, an object of exploration, a form of object coordination, an aggregate of interactions that coordinate a state or a phenomenon, a structure of a process etc.) or a tautology like “A sequence, duration, flow, change” etc. There were many frank speculations on the notion of time.
A characteristic one is a modern philosophical “definition” of this notion: “time is the form of origin, formation, flow and destruction in the world and the world itself together with everything it is connected with”. The idea of relativity of time flowing and its indissolubility with space did not clear up its understanding, not to say more, but have tightly bond it with real processes, all the more that physicians have partly taken this notion in philosophy, and the other part was defined intuitively, based on Ancient Greeks’ ideas.
The all known ideas of the notion “time” could be conditionally placed in two in principle different groups: the independent time and the time dependent on reality. But still there is no common logically non-discrepant notion. This discrepancy between uncertainty and necessity has serious objective reasons.
As long as a notion “time” is used in different cases and variations in the most of sources of information, such an uncertainty definitely influences their precision and trustworthiness. The absence of strict status in particular allows the very arbitrary handling of it, groundless impart to it different and fabulousness properties and characteristics: linearity and non-linearity, reversibility and non-reversibility, constancy and non-constancy of flowing, positivity and negativity, dimensionality and presence of many flows, the beginning of time (and probably the end), possibilities of “inter-notional crossing” with the same “receptacle” of events as a space etc. in particular, sometimes the time is interpreted not only as an absolutely independent but the thing that can create and destroy something. As an example we could adduce a Solomon’s idiom “everything is passing by” that means the time. We have to underlines that as a rule all this is set a priori, arbitrarily, and is selected to solve the exact problem. We have to add as well that every science uses its own ideas of time. It is obvious that it must influence appropriate conclusions and recommendations.
A kind of clearness could be brought in solution if the problem by the TCS.
Here are some of the initial statements:
1. The time has no sense for the constant state, i.e. when there are no changes in the object state.
2. The time has no sense for the fixed (momentary) state.
3. The time has a sense only for a multitude of momentary states of an object or objects.
4. The defined significance for any description and investigation have notions “activities” and “changes” that influence the state and existence of objects.
5. Objects can change only when there is a difference of states of parts of one ACS (RCS), i.e. the reason of change in not the time itself, it is only one of the reasons.
6. The notion time is derivative from the notion state.
From the TCS positions some of the variants of time definition could be offered:
1. In the most common case the notion of time can be defined from the system of basic TCS notions and dependences. The state if object C can be considered as a result of interaction of two initial objects of one RCS that has initial states С1 and С2. In a condition of state intensity the time could be defined as follows:
where , and R in its turn is a resistance (braking) of a dividing zone, ΔU = U1 – U2 is the difference of levels of objects’ states.
Thus, with invariable parameters after corresponding substitutions we would obtain
Or, going on derivatives with variables ΔU and R we well obtain
Therefore, the notion “time” is the function of notion state, level and resistance.
This idea of time could be named local or immanent . The characteristic example of its effective application, for example, is a choice for a time unit a cyclic process duration that proceeds in given CCS, for example in a period of some animal’s heartbeat . It is significant that in these units duration of life of a rabbit and an elephant would be the same unlike its measuring in objective astronomical units.
An example of biphasic local system of time is the Greenwich Time (common for the whole planet) and the local time (common fore one zone).
The local time is used practically in whole spheres of science and technique because it reflects the real processes. For example: the age of an alive organism is counted from a date of birth, so in a notion of age are included its definite state (childhood, youth, adultness, old age). Confessional beliefs count local time from the Christ’s’, Mohamed’s, Buddha’s date of birth etc. Geological time begins from the fixed geological processes, from formation of stratigrafic horizons. In techniques the time unit is often duration of machines’ or their particular parts working cycles, i.e. using of the local time allows solving the absolute majority of practical problems connected with processes’ flow.
2. The above idea of time concerns the real changes of the real objects of specific CCS. But it does not allow informational comparison of states of objects different CS, i.e. description of independent processes. In this case the 2nd determination of time is used: the time is the way of information comparison of states (or their indexes) of objects that are in different CS using a dynamic model of CS as a reference system that is called watches. Watches are in this case a “mediator” through which the different objects of different CS are compared in an information way (without real action). This variant has a coordination function.
By the first definition every CS has its own time (its own inner changes). The united examination of several CS the only possible objective comparison is a comparison relatively CS that are of the same value. Nowadays the scientific example of this type of time is an “objective” astronomic or atomic time (system SI).
3. One of the variants of idea of “time” is the reference process, realized in watches. But this definition itself has no sense because it is not connected, neither with a real action and the change nor with informational comparison of states of different objects, i.e. the statement “X hours Y minutes” itself means something only when their meaning and the real actions are connected in consciousness.
4. The fourth variant is the particular case for the first object a man and his environment in all forms of their manifestations and interactions. This is a flow of intuitive, organic feeling of “independent”, “irreversible”, “insuperable” time. In this case time is the measure of quantity of object state changes – a man and an anti-object – an environment in their CCS, i.e. this “independent” time depends on interaction process of man and his environment. This is a kind of “human” time.
Thus the whole information of external world finally goes to a man this variety of time idea is intuitively felt as a basic and independent one, therefore objectively, precisely and scientifically the first and the second variant in particular are primary. The first variant has a sense only in one CS. That is why the universal variant is the second one.
Theoretically (as an ideal) a cycle process that proceeds in one CS and taken as a standard of time (watches) can not influence the changed (described) process proceeding in the other CS. But practically because of relativity of a notion CS and impossibility to absolutely close any of systems probability of influence of “watches” and other CS on the described process is possible. I.e. the exactness of measuring can not be absolute. It is only necessary to interpret correctly this influence and do not substitute theoretic essence of the notion time by side practical peculiarities. Negation of factors not taken into account (unknown) that influence the time in fact determine a deformation of time notion. From these positions follows impossibility of their investigation and use and, as a result, deformation of an objective world outlook (physical in particular).
From the mentioned ideas of notion “time” we could conclude the following:
1. The time itself cannot change, create, destroy anything etc. It is either a part of factors that influence the change of real CCS (the 1st variant), or an information way of comparison, i.e. with no real action (2nd variant).
2. The time itself cannot flow faster or slower or in an arbitrary changeable regime. Otherwise ideal or local process is not in the ACS (CCS) and is influenced by some external factors that were not taken into account.
3. The time is an universal ideal mediator of measuring of any indexes and states of arbitrary objects, that allow informational comparison of equal CCS objects.
4. The notion “time” uniquely defined only on a maximum high level of generalization of initial notions, i.e. on a notion level of the TCS. Successive use of mentioned peculiarities and properties would allow to avoid many logical and fact errors while describing objects and processes and investigating different problems, including physical and cosmological ones (p. 3.4, 3.6).