Does time exist?

roosh · 21-11-2009 7:58pm #1

Personally I believe that time does not exist, that it is merely a figment of the imagination of mankind, and our subsequent belief that it is an external force acting in the universe, makes it, by definition, an illusion.

I know for people in this forum, that this is probably not a radically new idea, however, trying to discuss it with people who are more scientifically trained than I, leads to the usual dismissal of the notion as "crackpottery".

As the notion of time has a very real impact on how mankind behaves, and with the impact that the scineces have on the collective psyche, I personally believe that such a question be given serious consideration, as the impact that it has on the collective worldview is very relevant, important and fundamental to the question of existence.

I would be interested in hearing anyone elses views on whether time exists in reality or is merely the invention of mankind, based on a misperception of naturally occuring phenomena.

I ultimately see time as a measurement system, as opposed to a force than can be measured. It is often pointed out to me, that time dilation is evidence that the contemporary conceptualisation of time is correct, as per the theory of General Relativity. The issue I have with this however, is that there is a self-contained notion of time that amounts to circular reasoning.

Ultimately it is assumed that time exists, and that clocks measure time. However, with regard to the clocks, I believe it is erroneous to suggest that they measure an external entity/force called time.

With regard to the atomic clock, what is measured is the microwave emissions of changing electrons, while the older clocks that give rise to the 24hr clock were the measure of the degree of the earths rotation. To then make the jump to say that these things measure anything other than what was stated i.e. emissions of changing electrons, or the degree of the rotation of the earth, namely that they measure the force that is time, is a non sequitor, it is illogical.

How I see it, and again this is probably nothing fundamentally new, is that when time is given as a measurement, what is actually being measured is the change that occurs in an object relative to the number of microwave emissions of a changing electron in an atom, or relative to the degrees of rotation of the earth, or relative to some other [almost] constant phenomenon.

The practical implication of this, is that instead of viewing time as a force of nature, it is merely viewed as a measurement system, akin to the metric system, and is afforded no special properties with regard to the "spacetime continuum".

What adds perhaps, further credence to this is outlined in the following articles Article #1 and Article #2.

These refer to a solution to the equations for General Relativity, where time seems to "disappear". This is often referred to "as the problem of time" in Physics, and as far as I can gather is represented as Diffeomorphism Symmetry.

For those that are mathematically minded, there is an online lecture given by Lee Smolin. The first lecture is an introduction to "the problem of time" and doesn't really require much mathematical training. The second would require much better mathematical training in order to understand. That is where I left it, as my maths is only leaving cert level (and first year college).

Any ideas on the issue are welcome.

Joe1919 · 21-11-2009 10:20pm

I am in agreement with you here. Many philosophers over the years have argued that time is subjective and has no real existence.
Time ( & space ) is just our way of viewing the world and is not absolute but relative.

Aristotle (Physics.4.iv.) thought that time was just the way we subjectively measure change.

Indeed, this view was taken by St. Augustine (~ 390 AD) when he said we cannot truly say that time is, because it tends not to be. (Book 11)
http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/augustine.htm

Aquinas argues that causation may take place outside of time and casts doubt on the whole notion of creation (big bang?) taking place in time.
Aquinas also states that time 'does not have perfect existence outside the soul'. (i.e. Time only exists in the mind).

Kant also argues that both space and time are 'pure forms of intuition' i.e. They are just ways of seeing the world and both space and time in themselves are nothing.
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047SECT5

Einstein also cast doubt on our Newtonian way of viewing time and argues that time is relative. (Does this mean that time exists at all outside of the subjective and relative view of the observer? )

Joe1919 · 21-11-2009 10:52pm

mangaroosh wrote: »

....Ultimately it is assumed that time exists, and that clocks measure time. However, with regard to the clocks, I believe it is erroneous to suggest that they measure an external entity/force called time........

Yes, you are correct here. A clock does not measure time but counts the swings of a pendlum or the vibration of a electronic crystal etc. and time is always measured or compared 'relative' to this. Similarly, the calender and larger quantities of time are 'relative' to the perceived movements of the sun and moon 'relative' to the earth.

IMO, you cannot attribute any reality to time but you can to the change that takes place.

Also, I am in agreement with Augustine that the past and future only exist in the mind (as memories or anticipations) and only the 'now' or present moment exists. Hence time travel will never be possible. (imo)

Besides memory, what does exist is 'traces' of the past but these are really only the effects of change.

roosh · 22-11-2009 12:14am

cheers Joe, I was starting to think that I was going mad. I knew it wasn't an entirely new concept, and I was introduced to it more coherently through spiritual literature.

Have you any idea whether or not such a paradigm shift is being effected within the framework of contemporary science? Most people I discuss it with, within a scientific context dismiss it almost immediately, and I was wondering where it stands as an idea, in that regard.

cheers for the links too

Joe1919 · 22-11-2009 1:59am

mangaroosh wrote: »

cheers Joe, I was starting to think that I was going mad. I knew it wasn't an entirely new concept, and I was introduced to it more coherently through spiritual literature.

Have you any idea whether or not such a paradigm shift is being effected within the framework of contemporary science? Most people I discuss it with, within a scientific context dismiss it almost immediately, and I was wondering where it stands as an idea, in that regard.

cheers for the links too

My interest in 'time' is from the philosophical viewpoint. This position is similar in many ways to 'presentism' the theory that only present things exist, and future and past things are unreal.
The word 'presentism' also has other meanings (e.g Judging the past by todays standards) so dont confuse.

In terms of philosophy, it can tie in with Kants idealism and to some extent with much of post modern thinking in terms of anti-realism.
My impression is that science dislikes the anti-realism and sceptism of idealism and post-modern and likes to think in terms of realism and hence probably likes attributing 'reality' to abstract concepts like time. In this respect, perhaps science is like religion in having faith in entities that they cant prove to exist but just fits into their way of thinking and non belief of time is an act of scientific heresy so to speak.
This last point (that space and time and casuality can not be proved to exist but yet are necessary concepts for our understanding of the world) is often taken up by transcendentalist philosophers and eastern religions to suggest that transcendental beliefs (in gods etc) are not as unreasonable as they seem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

Plenty of stuff on the net under this heading in both science and philosophy.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=presentism+time&hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Search

tech77 · 23-11-2009 6:33am

Joe1919 wrote: »

Yes, you are correct here. A clock does not measure time but counts the swings of a pendlum or the vibration of a electronic crystal etc. and time is always measured or compared 'relative' to this. Similarly, the calender and larger quantities of time are 'relative' to the perceived movements of the sun and moon 'relative' to the earth.

IMO, you cannot attribute any reality to time but you can to the change that takes place.

Also, I am in agreement with Augustine that the past and future only exist in the mind (as memories or anticipations) and only the 'now' or present moment exists. Hence time travel will never be possible. (imo)

Besides memory, what does exist is 'traces' of the past but these are really only the effects of change.

Very interesting thread

I wonder how corrupting an influence the (conventional flawed?) view of time is on important thinking in physics.

davej · 23-11-2009 11:34am

Read "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour.

Check out this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKsNraFxPwk

davej

Myerz · 23-11-2009 6:28pm

Time does exist, it's 17.27.

/Close thread

Joe1919 · 23-11-2009 7:11pm

tech77 wrote: »

Very interesting thread
I wonder how corrupting an influence the (conventional flawed?) view of time is on important thinking in physics.

I think we can use science to take a dogmatic view of the world but to this is a mistake. I think many scientists are probably fallibilists and know the limit of their knowledge.(I much prefer this view. ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism

davej wrote: »

Read "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour.

Check out this video:

davej

An important sentence in the above video (at 13 minutes) is his statement that 'Physics always have to have very simple models to try to explain the world.'.
This sentence sums up a lot (imo). Man originally used myths and gods to explain the world, now he has moved on to mathematical models. I think it's important to realise that our explanations of the world are only models: they are useful and give us some idea of the working of the world but they are not the truth in the absolute sense or the final say on the matter.

Joycey · 23-11-2009 7:16pm

davej wrote: »

Read "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour.

Check out this video:

davej

Thanks for the link, enjoyed the video. I tried reading that book a few months ago but found it fairly tough going. Should probably have another crack at it, especially now that Ive seen that video. Often find it really hard to read physics books as they tend to put things in visual terms where I must not be able to grasp them in the ways they seem to expect me to be able to. Still not sure I really get what was going on with his visual model in the video.

I mean, how does it square with notions of a cyclical nature of the universe, where it expands to a certain extent (along his axes) but then implodes and starts with a new big bang? (and where does that idea actually come from? its a relatively common notion nowadays isnt it?). And what about the idea that the big bang happened when two universes banged against eachother (which I think I came across in this http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml which should be available from torrent sites)?

And also, doesnt the fact that he has represented all the possible 'nows' that can ever exist, in terms of space already pregiven (the axes), completely go against the whole idea of time only emerging as a perceived difference between two self contained instants, or 'nows'? If they truly are self contained then in what sense do they bear any relationship to his 'alpha' point, or the big bang? Perhaps "self contained" doesnt mean that they are entirely free from causation (if such a concept even makes sense any more), but rather that there is nothing inherent in their structure which necessitates a notion of change of this structure, they are self contained in the sense of unchanging.

I dunno, I feel confused 'now'

Finally, is he essentially fleshing out, in physical terms as opposed to those relating to our perceptual processes, what Kant was saying ages ago? And how does his notion of time relate to Buddhism? I remember a really interesting class on Nietzsche where we were talking about some Buddhist notion of causation whereby each individual instant comes into existence in precisely this self contained manner, yet at the same time is 'caused' by everything in existence, somewhat like Barbour's conception of quantum physics.

Sorry for rambling...

ChocolateSauce · 23-11-2009 8:03pm

Time is a measurement of change, and change is self-evidently true. It exists in this sense, and also in the sense that a great many phenomena depend on time to be mathematically solved. However, it is impossible to go "back" in time, as the past doesn't exist except in our minds, so in this sense it doesn't exist.

Light is both a wave and a particle...maybe time can be considered to have some duality?

Joycey · 23-11-2009 8:42pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Time is a measurement of change, and change is self-evidently true

Not too sure about that. In what way is it self-evident? Because it manifests itself through our perceptual processes as such? Surely it was self-evident that the earth was stationary before Galileo and co, as Barbour says.

Why couldnt a conception of the duration of a process (me moving my hand) be based on the idea that each individual state of the world (each individuated event that happens in the process, each time an electron moves ever so slightly etc) comes into existence completely independently of anything else be equally valid?

Joe1919 · 23-11-2009 10:09pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Time is a measurement of change, and change is self-evidently true. It exists in this sense, and also in the sense that a great many phenomena depend on time to be mathematically solved. However, it is impossible to go "back" in time, as the past doesn't exist except in our minds, so in this sense it doesn't exist.

Light is both a wave and a particle...maybe time can be considered to have some duality?

The word phenomena means 'to appear' or anything that can be perceived as an occurrence or fact by the senses.

Now you are right (imo) if you mean that things 'appear' to us humans ( & probably animals) in time. However, in terms of dualism, is time objective (out there in the world) or subjective (in our minds)?

According to Kant, time is not objective or 'a thing in themselves' but is a 'forms of human intuition, and can only be proved valid for things as they appear to us and not for things as they are in themselves'. (i.e. time is subjective).

Panrich · 27-11-2009 12:08pm

First visit to the philosphy forum. Interesting concepts here. I have not thought about this before (maybe because before doesn't exist!) but how can we rationalise our actions or the universe without time. If I catch a ball, my brain makes calculations based on speed, trajectory, distance etc. and the end result is a ball in the hand. I see that we are using time in this case in the same way as we use distance (a measuring tool to predict where the ball will be at certain points) but I have difficulty in relating that to past memories. If I break a cup, and it is lying on the floor, there are some things that to me are self evident. At some point the cup was complete because I remember it as complete and I see other cups that are still complete. I have a memory of the cup falling to the floor and breaking. I have evidence on the floor that such an event occured.
Without time as something more than a measuring tool we have multiple states for everything. The ball is in my hand or flying through the air. The cup is on the table or on the floor broken.

Without time is anything real?
Am I talking rubbish?

Joe1919 · 27-11-2009 3:28pm

Panrich wrote: »

First visit to the philosphy forum. Interesting concepts here. I have not thought about this before (maybe because before doesn't exist!) but how can we rationalise our actions or the universe without time. If I catch a ball, my brain makes calculations based on speed, trajectory, distance etc. and the end result is a ball in the hand. I see that we are using time in this case in the same way as we use distance (a measuring tool to predict where the ball will be at certain points) but I have difficulty in relating that to past memories. If I break a cup, and it is lying on the floor, there are some things that to me are self evident. At some point the cup was complete because I remember it as complete and I see other cups that are still complete. I have a memory of the cup falling to the floor and breaking. I have evidence on the floor that such an event occured.
Without time as something more than a measuring tool we have multiple states for everything. The ball is in my hand or flying through the air. The cup is on the table or on the floor broken.

Without time is anything real?
Am I talking rubbish?

First of all, measurements are a human construct or concept or idea. If I have a 5 meter length of rope and decide to measure it, I can get different values for its length. The rope may be 5 meters long or 16 foot. I can even step it out using the measurements of my own body (pace or step) and say it is 6 paces long. The point I am making here is, that it's only the rope that has any reality as such. What exists is a length of rope. The '5 meters' is just a value or description that humans put on the rope and is relative. (i.e. different cultures use different measurements).

Now using this argument, we could say that 'time' is just a measure of change. It's the change that's real (like the rope).
Now in many ways this is very intuitive as regards time. Time does appear to be subjective. Five minutes of pain in a dentist chair can feel like a very long time. Where does time go when you fall into a deep sleep? Time seems to disappear.

Imagine that you fell into a deep coma and did not wake until next June. What real events would you notice when you awake? What you would notice would be the 'change' that had taken place while you were asleep. The summer would be in, the green leaves would be on the trees, a baby child that you know would now be older and perhaps able to walk or talk. It is these changes that you could say are real.

Using this model then, all that exists is the present, the now. The past only exist for you because you have a memory of the past or a trace of the past (e.g your broken cup) still existing in the present. The man in a coma or who loses his memory loses some of his past.

The argument here then ( if you accept it) is that time exists only in the memory and in the imagination: its something very important, an idea or pre-conception that we use to make sense of change.

Panrich · 27-11-2009 4:04pm

Ah! I see. Time exists as a measuring stick for change but it is not an integral part of the universe as such.

In this case then we need to understand what is the driver of change. Without some 'force' behind change there would be nothing to measure.

Joe1919 · 27-11-2009 6:10pm

Panrich wrote: »

Ah! I see. Time exists as a measuring stick for change but it is not an integral part of the universe as such.

In this case then we need to understand what is the driver of change. Without some 'force' behind change there would be nothing to measure.

There is in idea in philosophy that 'All is Change' i.e. There is no substance or anything behind change. What we call 'matter' and 'energy' are just forms of change....

But there are those that may reasonably argue that there must be some 'force' or 'driver' of this change........a cause so to speak......and because this is the cause of change, this 'cause' in itself is not part of the change.....its beyond change......beyond time..........eternal........a first cause...........

What could this driver be?

bigeasyeah · 27-11-2009 6:29pm

Fascinating thread.I always wondered about time and change.

roosh · 30-11-2009 10:57am

tech77 wrote: »

Very interesting thread
I wonder how corrupting an influence the (conventional flawed?) view of time is on important thinking in physics.

The use of time in physics has very real implications, not only on the use of resources to fund various projects, but the overriding influence it has on the human psyche.

One notion that I would personally question, and indeed one I wish to further explore, is how the treatment of time has lead to the idea that we live in an expanding universe.

roosh · 30-11-2009 11:23am

davej wrote: »

Read "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour.

Check out this video:

davej

must check out that book alright. I've heard some criticism about it on another forum, but will check it out.

Interesting vid also, I would question some of the points raised, but interesting nonetheless

ChocolateSauce · 30-11-2009 10:37pm

Joycey wrote: »

Why couldnt a conception of the duration of a process (me moving my hand) be based on the idea that each individual state of the world (each individuated event that happens in the process, each time an electron moves ever so slightly etc) comes into existence completely independently of anything else be equally valid?

Frankly, because it makes a lot less sense than the idea that existence doesn't work this way. As a concept, it is valid in the sense that we can imagine it, but in reality it is a fairly crazy notion.

The word phenomena means 'to appear' or anything that can be perceived as an occurrence or fact by the senses.

Phenomena is the word that we apply to events in the observer-independent reality which we inhabit.

According to Kant, time is not objective or 'a thing in themselves' but is a 'forms of human intuition, and can only be proved valid for things as they appear to us and not for things as they are in themselves'. (i.e. time is subjective).

Atomic clocks spring to mind, as does the time-dependent Schrodinger wave equation.

Joycey · 01-12-2009 11:48am

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Frankly, because it makes a lot less sense than the idea that existence doesn't work this way. As a concept, it is valid in the sense that we can imagine it, but in reality it is a fairly crazy notion.

But you're just (I assume) using the "self-evidence" of the fact that your perceptual processes work in susch a way as to cause you to believe in the notion of time to dismiss alternative theories. According to Barbour (Im not a mathematician so I cant verify it for myself...), due to the fundamentally different approaches to time in Einsteinean Relativity and quantum mechanics, the only way to make them cohere in a unified theory (some believe) is to lose the concept of time in just such a way. In which case the unified theory of everything (as physicists like to call it) would support something like the conception I posited above rather than the common sense notion of "time" as linear, flowing like a river etc.

Phenomena is the word that we apply to events in the observer-independent reality which we inhabit.

Preceisely the point of the distinction between noumena and phenomena (in Kant, but the words were in existence before him) is that we cant ever know whether things as they appear to us are in fact applicable to objects/events as they are in themselves(in your observer-independent reality).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

Atomic clocks spring to mind, as does the time-dependent Schrodinger wave equation.

Watch the video TBH, he deals with different methods of measuring "time", its only 25 mins and if you disagree with it after watching it, we can have a more interesting discussion

Joe1919 · 01-12-2009 4:31pm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Phenomena is the word that we apply to events in the observer-independent reality which we inhabit.

I think phenomena is the opposite to what you say e.g. WIKI
A phenomenon (from Greek phenomena) is any observable occurrence..... In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable,..... Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon

del88 · 03-12-2009 12:18am

Here's something to think about
Maybe time is a type of energy??....With out time nothing changes,everything stays the same.....maybe time is the only energy??
If you could stop time a falling apple would do nothing. It's mass,weight,gravitational force,speed would all be irrelevant .

Joe1919 · 03-12-2009 2:31am

del88 wrote: »

Here's something to think about
.With out time nothing changes

I would basically say the opposite.....without change, there is no time.... and by my reasoning, you are mixing up cause and effect.

davej · 03-12-2009 11:30pm

Joycey wrote: »

Preceisely the point of the distinction between noumena and phenomena (in Kant, but the words were in existence before him) is that we cant ever know whether things as they appear to us are in fact applicable to objects/events as they are in themselves(in your observer-independent reality).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

Watch the video TBH, he deals with different methods of measuring "time", its only 25 mins and if you disagree with it after watching it, we can have a more interesting discussion

Great that you have read Kant !

In any case, there are some issues with Barbour's idea - like how do you reconcile it with relativity, where there aren't any nows, just 3d surfaces in 4-d spacetime.

davej

ron_darrell · 28-12-2009 5:52am

I may be being dense but isn't Time that aspect of the universe that allows multiple objects to occupy the same point in space? (at different times of course - hence the need for Time

) Without it nothing would happen as all things would be fixed in place.

Joycey · 28-12-2009 12:18pm

davej wrote: »

Great that you have read Kant !

In any case, there are some issues with Barbour's idea - like how do you reconcile it with relativity, where there aren't any nows, just 3d surfaces in 4-d spacetime.

davej

Sorry for the late reply, ive only just seen this.

Well if you take as your definition of a "now" - a given unchanging arrangement of all the matter in the universe, then there are indeed "nows" in relativity. The snapshot metaphor captures the idea nicely IMO.

I think one of the main attractions to Barbour of his theory is that it makes relativity and quantum physics cohere, at least to some extent, by removing the idea of time from them at all, thus removing a central area of conflict between the two theories.

I may be being dense but isn't Time that aspect of the universe that allows multiple objects to occupy the same point in space? (at different times of course - hence the need for Time ) Without it nothing would happen as all things would be fixed in place.

I like that idea, and undoubtedly this is what time is, however what you have done is simply expressed the truth that cohabitation of space is possible, you have not really explained anything in saying it.

I think you have mixed up cause and effect, like what Joe was saying above, in that rather than "without it nothing would happen as all things would be fixed in place", its more something like this "different arrangements of matter are observed to occur, hence a concept of time arises in us in order to comprehend this difference". Time is not an objective phenomenon which permits this difference, it is the apphrehension of this difference that leads us to believe in time.

roosh · 30-12-2009 11:50pm

davej wrote: »

Great that you have read Kant !

In any case, there are some issues with Barbour's idea - like how do you reconcile it with relativity, where there aren't any nows, just 3d surfaces in 4-d spacetime.

davej

I think that is something that Barbour is working on at the moment apparently. I think that Niall Ó'Murchadha (a UCC lecturer is working on it too).

Barbour's website

Current Research Programme

HydeRoad · 01-01-2010 2:57pm

The subject of time fascinates me. The human describes time for the most part in manmade measurements of years, days, hours, seconds. The fact that these are linked to the rotation of the Earth is immaterial. That is a measurement of convenience, nothing more. However, our perception of time would seem to be related to the heartbeat.

If you look at small animals with a short lifespan in human terms, take a mouse for example, they have a rapid heartbeat, and seem to scuttle along and perform their daily tasks with lightning speed. When a mouse runs across your path, his legs seem to work at an impossibly fast rate. To a mouse, the world probably appears much as it does to a human, and humans probably appear as huge, very slow, lumbering beasts.

Conversely, long lived animals with slow heartbeats, such as elephants and tortoises, probably perceive humans as scuttling around too fast, much as we perceive mice. Picture an old Buster Keaton movie reel played at fast speed, with the actors scuttling about everywhere much too fast.

Taking this into account, while it is very easy to think back to what the world was like a couple of years ago, and what we were doing at any given time in our lives, it is very hard for a human to perceive the vast timescales of prehistory. The dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. It is impossible for the human brain to quantify that in relation to our own puny lifespan.

On a universal scale, if there were a greater consciousness capable of it's consideration, then the billions of years of the Earth's formation and the evolution of life, would probably appear to happen unimaginably quicker than the human brain is capable of doing. A single lifespan, or even the whole history of humanity, would be no more than a bubble appearing in a test tube and popping almost immediately out of existence.

Conversely again, on the atomic level, there could be a whole universe of life and interaction happening in the time it takes a human to blink an eyelid.

We are constrained by an unwritten law, which would seem to allow us only to perceive whatever is within our heartbeat's ability to perceive, on a human scale. That which is eons greater, or ions smaller, is outside of that, and can only be related in mathematical equations, but not in terms of human perception or experience.

aidan24326 · 07-01-2010 5:49pm

HydeRoad wrote: »

The subject of time fascinates me. The human describes time for the most part in manmade measurements of years, days, hours, seconds. The fact that these are linked to the rotation of the Earth is immaterial. That is a measurement of convenience, nothing more. However, our perception of time would seem to be related to the heartbeat.

If you look at small animals with a short lifespan in human terms, take a mouse for example, they have a rapid heartbeat, and seem to scuttle along and perform their daily tasks with lightning speed. When a mouse runs across your path, his legs seem to work at an impossibly fast rate. To a mouse, the world probably appears much as it does to a human, and humans probably appear as huge, very slow, lumbering beasts.

Conversely, long lived animals with slow heartbeats, such as elephants and tortoises, probably perceive humans as scuttling around too fast, much as we perceive mice. Picture an old Buster Keaton movie reel played at fast speed, with the actors scuttling about everywhere much too fast.

Taking this into account, while it is very easy to think back to what the world was like a couple of years ago, and what we were doing at any given time in our lives, it is very hard for a human to perceive the vast timescales of prehistory. The dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. It is impossible for the human brain to quantify that in relation to our own puny lifespan.

On a universal scale, if there were a greater consciousness capable of it's consideration, then the billions of years of the Earth's formation and the evolution of life, would probably appear to happen unimaginably quicker than the human brain is capable of doing. A single lifespan, or even the whole history of humanity, would be no more than a bubble appearing in a test tube and popping almost immediately out of existence.

Conversely again, on the atomic level, there could be a whole universe of life and interaction happening in the time it takes a human to blink an eyelid.

We are constrained by an unwritten law, which would seem to allow us only to perceive whatever is within our heartbeat's ability to perceive, on a human scale. That which is eons greater, or ions smaller, is outside of that, and can only be related in mathematical equations, but not in terms of human perception or experience.

It's true that in general animals with a fast heartbeat tend to have shorter lives and animals with a slower heartbeat have longer lives, but that's more down to the mechanics of how much beating a heart can actually do rather than any deeper relation to time itself. Your idea is a nice one though and what you say about perception is probably true.

Personally I think time is more of a pyschological construct than a real thing in and of itself.

GO_Bear · 15-01-2010 1:47pm

aidan24326 wrote: »

Personally I think time is more of a pyschological construct than a real thing in and of itself.

Like an abstract , like love ? While we cannot hold it in our hands we see its effects .
What about space ? is it a pyschological construct we designed to determine positions of objects in a system in relation to each other ?

h4ck573r · 15-01-2010 8:22pm

Joe1919 wrote: »

Yes, you are correct here. A clock does not measure time but counts the swings of a pendlum or the vibration of a electronic crystal etc. and time is always measured or compared 'relative' to this. Similarly, the calender and larger quantities of time are 'relative' to the perceived movements of the sun and moon 'relative' to the earth.

IMO, you cannot attribute any reality to time but you can to the change that takes place.

Also, I am in agreement with Augustine that the past and future only exist in the mind (as memories or anticipations) and only the 'now' or present moment exists. Hence time travel will never be possible. (imo)

Besides memory, what does exist is 'traces' of the past but these are really only the effects of change.

I agree with slight change...We do not see present , because of the delay we see near past.
The time that is required for our senses to perceive makes the perceived reality already past, because it is not instant.

h4ck573r · 15-01-2010 8:31pm

About the existence of time...
It is relative but does exist, time is not an illusion, without it you would not be able to post this question at all, or perhaps you never did.
Time is an effect in which events take place, it is measured by observing change to a referent object.
This is just my opinion, I am not that arrogant to assume that I am right.

CuriousOne · 31-01-2010 1:08pm

HydeRoad wrote: »

The subject of time fascinates me. The human describes time for the most part in manmade measurements of years, days, hours, seconds. The fact that these are linked to the rotation of the Earth is immaterial. That is a measurement of convenience, nothing more. However, our perception of time would seem to be related to the heartbeat.

If you look at small animals with a short lifespan in human terms, take a mouse for example, they have a rapid heartbeat, and seem to scuttle along and perform their daily tasks with lightning speed. When a mouse runs across your path, his legs seem to work at an impossibly fast rate. To a mouse, the world probably appears much as it does to a human, and humans probably appear as huge, very slow, lumbering beasts.

Conversely, long lived animals with slow heartbeats, such as elephants and tortoises, probably perceive humans as scuttling around too fast, much as we perceive mice. Picture an old Buster Keaton movie reel played at fast speed, with the actors scuttling about everywhere much too fast.

Taking this into account, while it is very easy to think back to what the world was like a couple of years ago, and what we were doing at any given time in our lives, it is very hard for a human to perceive the vast timescales of prehistory. The dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. It is impossible for the human brain to quantify that in relation to our own puny lifespan.

On a universal scale, if there were a greater consciousness capable of it's consideration, then the billions of years of the Earth's formation and the evolution of life, would probably appear to happen unimaginably quicker than the human brain is capable of doing. A single lifespan, or even the whole history of humanity, would be no more than a bubble appearing in a test tube and popping almost immediately out of existence.

Conversely again, on the atomic level, there could be a whole universe of life and interaction happening in the time it takes a human to blink an eyelid.

We are constrained by an unwritten law, which would seem to allow us only to perceive whatever is within our heartbeat's ability to perceive, on a human scale. That which is eons greater, or ions smaller, is outside of that, and can only be related in mathematical equations, but not in terms of human perception or experience.

Now that's really good. I believe in a 'Now' that contains past, present and future, which only exists/existed for an instant and which we are able to perceive in a super-slow motion, a kind of suspended animation. The Universe has been and gone and we exist in its echo.

roosh · 17-08-2011 2:20pm

Came across this a while ago. It's an interesting read, even if you don't get the maths (which I don't) - the Nature of Time - Julian Barbour

Abstract: A review of some basic facts of classical dynamics shows that time, or precisely duration, is redundant as a fundamental concept. Duration and the behaviour of clocks emerge from a timeless law that governs change.

A further quote from the article

time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things....

- Ernst Mach

Morbert · 17-08-2011 8:36pm

roosh wrote: »

Came across this a while ago. It's an interesting read, even if you don't get the maths (which I don't) - the Nature of Time - Julian Barbour

Do you believe, as the physics in the above piece implies, that the past and the future are just as real as the present? I had a previous discussion with you where I inferred you didn't think so.

roosh · 19-08-2011 12:58pm

Morbert wrote: »

Do you believe, as the physics in the above piece implies, that the past and the future are just as real as the present? I had a previous discussion with you where I inferred you didn't think so.

I wouldn't be inclined to accept all of the theory, or at least as I understand it from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKsNraFxPwk

I do think it is a step in the right direction, however. If it is acknowledged that time is abstracted from change, then the notion of moment to moment snapshots existing can be examined.

Morbert · 19-08-2011 4:06pm

roosh wrote: »

I wouldn't be inclined to accept all of the theory, or at least as I understand it from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKsNraFxPwk

I do think it is a step in the right direction, however. If it is acknowledged that time is abstracted from change, then the notion of moment to moment snapshots existing can be examined.

The document presents the picture where all the snapshots or "configurations" exist. The set of all these configurations is called a configuration space. Each location in this space corresponds to a different snapshot. Time, as well as "change", is derived from the curves in this space that minimises the action. So even change would not be fundamental, but a derivation of the structure of all the snapshots. Neither time nor change is fundamental.

You seem to be suppose something different. You are supposing that only one snapshot represents the "present" and all other snapshots of the past and future don't exist any more, or haven't existed yet. But "present" is relative to different frames of reference. What is the present for me, can encompass the past, present, and future for you. In other words, there are many different ways to take a snapshot, and there is no snapshot that is more real than any other. The notion of change is no more fundamental than the notion of time.

roosh · 23-08-2011 6:20pm

Morbert wrote: »

The document presents the picture where all the snapshots or "configurations" exist. The set of all these configurations is called a configuration space. Each location in this space corresponds to a different snapshot. Time, as well as "change", is derived from the curves in this space that minimises the action. So even change would not be fundamental, but a derivation of the structure of all the snapshots. Neither time nor change is fundamental.

You seem to be suppose something different. You are supposing that only one snapshot represents the "present" and all other snapshots of the past and future don't exist any more, or haven't existed yet. But "present" is relative to different frames of reference. What is the present for me, can encompass the past, present, and future for you. In other words, there are many different ways to take a snapshot, and there is no snapshot that is more real than any other. The notion of change is no more fundamental than the notion of time.

I think we can drop the idea of snapshots altogether, they are superfluous and probably just a hangover from the subconscious attachment to the notion of time being existential.

If you imagine the movement of the planets, in our solar system, around the sun - and take it as a microscosmic model of the universe - where do the snapshots come into play? Is what we see as the movement of the planets just a series of snapshots on a roll of film? What is the process of transition from one snapshot to another? Why is that even necessary, why can't the planets themselves exist and move around the sun, without the need for there to be an infinite number of snapshots of them.

Morbert · 29-08-2011 2:17pm

roosh wrote: »

I think we can drop the idea of snapshots altogether, they are superfluous and probably just a hangover from the subconscious attachment to the notion of time being existential.

If you imagine the movement of the planets, in our solar system, around the sun - and take it as a microscosmic model of the universe - where do the snapshots come into play? Is what we see as the movement of the planets just a series of snapshots on a roll of film? What is the process of transition from one snapshot to another? Why is that even necessary, why can't the planets themselves exist and move around the sun, without the need for there to be an infinite number of snapshots of them.

There is no true snapshot of the "present". Say you are sitting on a park bench, and I am walking down the street at a couple of kilometres per hour. From my perspective, a star in Andromeda might be about to go supernova. From your perspective, the star may have already gone supernova. Your present contains my some of my past, present and future, and vice versa. I must stress that this is not due to light reaching you before or after me. Your snapshot is intrinsically different to mine. So there cannot be only a single snapshot.

roosh · 30-08-2011 7:31pm

Morbert wrote: »

There is no true snapshot of the "present". Say you are sitting on a park bench, and I am walking down the street at a couple of kilometres per hour. From my perspective, a star in Andromeda might be about to go supernova. From your perspective, the star may have already gone supernova. Your present contains my some of my past, present and future, and vice versa. I must stress that this is not due to light reaching you before or after me. Your snapshot is intrinsically different to mine. So there cannot be only a single snapshot.

Although I am arguing against the notion of snapshots, your use of it here is very helpful as an explanatory aid.

I think we can differntiate between what people perceive in the present and the present itself. On that basis I think it might be more accurate to say that no individual's perspective is a true snapshot of the present, as opposed to their not being one.

If we imagine the universe going about it's usual course of events and then suddenly pausing, granted, each individual may have a different perception of things, but that just means they have a different perception in that moment. The actual state of the universe would represent the "true snapshot".

The issue of why people perceive things differently is incidental, but I still have trouble seeing why it is that the distance light has to travel doesn't have a material effect. Taking the example of the Andromedan star, we know that the light is travelling outwards. If I am closer to the star then the light reaches me first, and you second, meaning that each light quantum (or photon, or whatever the correct term is) will pass me first, before it passes you. That way, I will "see" each quantum of light first.

If the star goes supernova, then the resultant light will pass me before it passes you, meaning that I will see it first. No?

Morbert · 31-08-2011 2:32pm

roosh wrote: »

Although I am arguing against the notion of snapshots, your use of it here is very helpful as an explanatory aid.

I think we can differntiate between what people perceive in the present and the present itself. On that basis I think it might be more accurate to say that no individual's perspective is a true snapshot of the present, as opposed to their not being one.

If we imagine the universe going about it's usual course of events and then suddenly pausing, granted, each individual may have a different perception of things, but that just means they have a different perception in that moment. The actual state of the universe would represent the "true snapshot".

The issue of why people perceive things differently is incidental, but I still have trouble seeing why it is that the distance light has to travel doesn't have a material effect. Taking the example of the Andromedan star, we know that the light is travelling outwards. If I am closer to the star then the light reaches me first, and you second, meaning that each light quantum (or photon, or whatever the correct term is) will pass me first, before it passes you. That way, I will "see" each quantum of light first.

If the star goes supernova, then the resultant light will pass me before it passes you, meaning that I will see it first. No?

If you and I were sitting on park benches, with you closer to the star, the light from the supernova would reach you before me. We would do a quick calculation, taking into account the finite speed of light and our respective proximities to the star, and conclude that the star went supernova at some time we both agree on. But if I was walking, and let's say I was still further from the star, and we took into account the same considerations, we would both disagree on when the star went supernova. Your "present" would be different to mine. Similarly, let's say I was passing you at the exact moment the light reached us, so that we both detected the supernova at the same time. We would still disagree on when it occurred.

I cannot stress enough that it is not an aberration due to light. The absence of a single, correct present is evident even after we take into account the finite speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRDN7ceu6UU

roosh · 01-09-2011 2:59pm

Morbert wrote: »

If you and I were sitting on park benches, with you closer to the star, the light from the supernova would reach you before me. We would do a quick calculation, taking into account the finite speed of light and our respective proximities to the star, and conclude that the star went supernova at some time we both agree on. But if I was walking, and let's say I was still further from the star, and we took into account the same considerations, we would both disagree on when the star went supernova. Your "present" would be different to mine. Similarly, let's say I was passing you at the exact moment the light reached us, so that we both detected the supernova at the same time. We would still disagree on when it occurred.

I cannot stress enough that it is not an aberration due to light. The absence of a single, correct present is evident even after we take into account the finite speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Assuming that the above is true, it still only demonstrates the difference between individuals perception of the present and the present itself.

I watched the video you posted - cheers, I'm always interested in things like that that offer clear explanations of scientific ideas - but if you play it to the end, the selection of related videos at the end contains one which, to the lay persons mind, is pretty interesting. It attempts to highlight the flaws in the theoretical model that Einsteing used (the flashes of lightning), which potentially address the issues of simultaneity. It's worth a watch - although, unfortunately, I am not in a position to really critique it; rather ask if certain elements are correct or not.

youtube slide-show

It tried embedding the video but couldn't get it to work, if someone can manage to do it, that would be great. If they could also post the unparsed link as well, just to show what part of the url goes into the youtube tags (bcos I tried every possible way, I think) that would be sweet, cheeers.

The related website, absolute-relativity, is probably worth a read also, because he goes into more depth, which will probably be easier interpreted by yourself and others.

CerebralCortex · 01-09-2011 3:30pm

roosh wrote: »

Assuming that the above is true, it still only demonstrates the difference between individuals perception of the present and the present itself.

I watched the video you posted - cheers, I'm always interested in things like that that offer clear explanations of scientific ideas - but if you play it to the end, the selection of related videos at the end contains one which, to the lay persons mind, is pretty interesting. It attempts to highlight the flaws in the theoretical model that Einsteing used (the flashes of lightning), which potentially address the issues of simultaneity. It's worth a watch - although, unfortunately, I am not in a position to really critique it; rather ask if certain elements are correct or not.

youtube slide-show

It tried embedding the video but couldn't get it to work, if someone can manage to do it, that would be great. If they could also post the unparsed link as well, just to show what part of the url goes into the youtube tags (bcos I tried every possible way, I think) that would be sweet, cheeers.

The related website, absolute-relativity, is probably worth a read also, because he goes into more depth, which will probably be easier interpreted by yourself and others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvx945SP-RM

roosh · 01-09-2011 4:33pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

cheers for that CC.

I thought I had tried pretty much every possible permutation of the url (I was sure I had tried that one too)

Morbert · 01-09-2011 5:04pm

roosh wrote: »

Assuming that the above is true, it still only demonstrates the difference between individuals perception of the present and the present itself.

But what is the real "present"? You do not like the concept of time because it is a derivative quality, not directly observed, but rather derived from other observations. Yet the "true present" is not only unobservable, but also cannot even be derived from observation. It is even less real than the notion of time. Any snapshot is just as physically meaningful as any other, and it makes little sense to suppose an extra-meaningful snapshot that is undetectable.

I watched the video you posted - cheers, I'm always interested in things like that that offer clear explanations of scientific ideas - but if you play it to the end, the selection of related videos at the end contains one which, to the lay persons mind, is pretty interesting. It attempts to highlight the flaws in the theoretical model that Einsteing used (the flashes of lightning), which potentially address the issues of simultaneity. It's worth a watch - although, unfortunately, I am not in a position to really critique it; rather ask if certain elements are correct or not.

youtube slide-show

It tried embedding the video but couldn't get it to work, if someone can manage to do it, that would be great. If they could also post the unparsed link as well, just to show what part of the url goes into the youtube tags (bcos I tried every possible way, I think) that would be sweet, cheeers.

The related website, absolute-relativity, is probably worth a read also, because he goes into more depth, which will probably be easier interpreted by yourself and others.

The video is a mishmash that seems to be ignoring the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Observer2 and Observer1 would agree on the speed of light, and hence disagree on the time of the flashes.

The website is bizarre, but it seems to be insisting on a "real space" (and a strange notion of photons without momentum, a demonstrably false notion). This "real space" is undetectable and arbitrary.

Also, these type of videos and websites tend to employ tunnel vision. They never address the fact that a) The experimental tests of relativity have gone far beyond the Michelson-Morley experiments of old, and if "real space" was physically meaningful, it would have been detected in modern experiments. And b) Quantum field theory is the quantum-mechanical extension of special relativity, has made predictions accurate to one part in a trillion.

To embed youtube videos, just enclose the last string of letters from the url in youtube tags. I.e. Your video would be (youtube)Lvx945SP(/youtube) only with square brackets instead of round.

roosh · 02-09-2011 8:00pm

Morbert wrote: »

But what is the real "present"? You do not like the concept of time because it is a derivative quality, not directly observed, but rather derived from other observations. Yet the "true present" is not only unobservable, but also cannot even be derived from observation. It is even less real than the notion of time. Any snapshot is just as physically meaningful as any other, and it makes little sense to suppose an extra-meaningful snapshot that is undetectable.

The video is a mishmash that seems to be ignoring the fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Observer2 and Observer1 would agree on the speed of light, and hence disagree on the time of the flashes.

The website is bizarre, but it seems to be insisting on a "real space" (and a strange notion of photons without momentum, a demonstrably false notion). This "real space" is undetectable and arbitrary.

Also, these type of videos and websites tend to employ tunnel vision. They never address the fact that a) The experimental tests of relativity have gone far beyond the Michelson-Morley experiments of old, and if "real space" was physically meaningful, it would have been detected in modern experiments. And b) Quantum field theory is the quantum-mechanical extension of special relativity, has made predictions accurate to one part in a trillion.

To embed youtube videos, just enclose the last string of letters from the url in youtube tags. I.e. Your video would be (youtube)Lvx945SP(/youtube) only with square brackets instead of round.

I don't think it ignores the fact that the speed of light is constant in every reference frame, at all; what it says is that the model used to represent the reality of the observed phenomena is flawed, that it doesn't take into account certain relevant information.

What it says, with regard to the original thought experiment Einstein used, is that there are four "time points" which are relevant, and which, when taken into consideration, would lead to both observers calculating that the flashes of lightning occured simultaneously.

What it says is:

The flashes of lightning occur at rods A (behind train) & B (in front of train) at time=t1 - neither observer sees the flashes in that instant.
The light from the flashes travels towards the midpoint (M) where Observer 2 is standing.
As the train is in motion, Observer 1 will meet the light from rod B at a point beyond M (call it X) at time=t2
Observer 2 will see light from rods A & B at the same time, at time interval t=3 (Observer 2 will have travelled a further distance along the track to Y)
The light from Rod A will reach Observer 1 at time=t4 when Observer 1 is at location Z along the track

According to the author, once all these times and co-ordinates are taken into account then both observers would calculate that the flashes occurred at A & B simultaneously.

The assumption as far as I am aware, is the speed of light is constant for both observers.

Real Space
With regard to the "real space" the author is insisting on I think the distinciton is made between

real space, where planets or space crafts are travelling in, corresponds to Newton's absolute space as the absolute reference at absolute rest

the mathematical artificial two-dimensional "space" as defined by that reference frame of Obs2 is thus virtual in the mind of Obs2 which does not exist in reality outside the mind of Obs2 as a real space.

I think the distinction is more between conceptual space, as defined mathematically, and real, non-conceptual space.

Momentum of photons
Again, I don't think he/she is using the strange notion of photons without momentum, what is said is that the use of geometrical "zig-zeg" lines, to represent the beam of light, is an incorrect model of the phenomena of light, which doesn't take into account the fact that light isn't necessarily a single "ray" but rather is made up of quanta. They say that these quanta don't travel in the "zig zag" fashion as depicted in the models, but follows the trajectory as outlined in figure 9 on this page.

Each trajectory is perfectly perpendicular to the x-axis since the laser pulse is NOT inheriting the velocity component of the laser in the x-axis direction.

The individual photon trajectories in Figure 9 are parallel to one another. It should be remarked in that respect that Figure 5, which is based on classic optics, indeed suggests that the laser pulse is perfectly following the laser for whatever velocity of the laser ; thus that the laser pulse "inherits" in the x-axis direction the velocity of the laser itself. That is already a contradiction within classic physics where it is stated that the speed of light is not influenced by the mechanical velocity component of the light source itself

From what I can gather, it doesn't suggest the notion of photons without momentum, rather the idea that the photons will not inherit the velocity of the laser, that they will travel perpecdicular to the X-axis (along which the laser moves) as opposed to at an angle as suggested by the "zig-zag"! model.

Tunnel vision
Unfortunately I can't engage in any meaningful critique of that part of your post, other than to assert that the observations from experiments applying GR won't actually change, but the manner in which they are interpreted might. Perhaps a change in model could lead to progress in the quest to unify GR and QM.

Objections to the notion of time
The challenge to the notion of time isn't necessarily on the basis that it is unobservable, or a derivitave quality, the objection is that it isn't even necessarily derived from other observations, it is assumed to exist a priori. The subsequent attempt to derive its existence simply isn't logical, and again relies on an unjistified assumption.

The assumption is that certain, either specific or non-specific, physical phenomena can be used to measure this thing called time, when, in fact, those physical phenomena are simply used as standard units of comparison - they [may indeed] exist, and the things which are measured against them [may indeed] exist, but the thing called time is not measured against them.

Time is* the name given to the system of measurement, it is not the thing which is measured.

*or at least it should be recognised for what it is.

"True present"
The issue of "the derivative nature of time" does not necessarily apply to the notion of the "true present". If we all live in the same universe (as opposed to occupying our own separate but interacting universes) then the notion of a "true present" is a necessary consequence, even if we cannot observe it directly - much as we cannot observe sub-atomic particles directly but can create a model to represent reality.

If we all live in the one universe, then we can imagine the entire universe being paused, or a snapshot of the entire universe; while each observer might have a different perspective of the present, we can still deduce that there would be a "true present" or snapshot of the universe. We could theoretically put an infinite number of observers in an infinite number of reference frames (or the corresponding number of observers in the corresponding number of reference frames) and work out what the "true present" would be. It's simply a lack of information that prevents us from doing it, as opposed it not being possible.

roosh · 03-09-2011 2:20pm

Morbert wrote: »

If you and I were sitting on park benches, with you closer to the star, the light from the supernova would reach you before me. We would do a quick calculation, taking into account the finite speed of light and our respective proximities to the star, and conclude that the star went supernova at some time we both agree on. But if I was walking, and let's say I was still further from the star, and we took into account the same considerations, we would both disagree on when the star went supernova. Your "present" would be different to mine. Similarly, let's say I was passing you at the exact moment the light reached us, so that we both detected the supernova at the same time. We would still disagree on when it occurred.

I cannot stress enough that it is not an aberration due to light. The absence of a single, correct present is evident even after we take into account the finite speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRDN7ceu6UU

just to relate it back to the video explanation of time dilation & simultaneity. It is the model of the path of the light, as observed by Albert, - "the essence of his [Lorentz's] reasoning" - and the basis for the derivation of gamma (in the video), which is inaccurate.

Yahew · 03-09-2011 2:25pm

The fact that most people cannot agree on the exact nature of the present does not make time disappear. It flows in one direction, but it is very really there.

roosh · 03-09-2011 2:30pm

Yahew wrote: »

The fact that most people cannot agree on the exact nature of the present does not make time disappear. It flows in one direction, but it is very really there.

The fact that most people cannot agree on the exact nature of the present does not mean that time exists - which is partly the point being made.

It doesn't flow at all, because it doesn't actually exist. It is an abstraction; a concept; a system of measurement, not something to be measured.

How do you know that it is there?

EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not saying that time does not exist because people cannot agree on the exact nature of the present, I'm saying that the fact, that they cannot agree, is not evidence that time exists.

Does time exist?

Comments