Does the time exist?

[Heis3nberg]

According to Loop qunatum gravity (Unproved theory) the spacetime is made of quantum gravitational grains, some "Knots" contain the volume of the space ( in discrete values), they are bined by the "links". A group of Knots or rather a set of lines which touch each other form a graph.

Without entering into specifics; the theory enunciates that space-time is made of these grains, they create the gravitational quantum field. So, If time is relatred to space and space-time is created by grains, on microscopic grains scale time doesn't exist. Because space and time are created by the "dance" of these elemenatry components.

But leaving out the loop quantum theory, Can we see the time?

If we try to shoot a bullet, we can calculate his speed, linear momentum, the Force with which he exits from the gun and exc..; we could also "see" these phisical parametres and decree their presence. But, what about the time? It is undetectable, maybe because it is only an illusion...

Take your watch, you can see the second hand which is ticking; A second passes, but we haven't seen the time yet, we can only decree that second hand has made a circular movements of four degrees. The physics laws of the nature would be the same if we considered that a circulare movement of 4 degrres of the second hand of very watch is equal to one second...

The Wheleer-De witt equation of loop quantum theory doens't have the time parameter, because on microscopic scale it doesn't exist...

Like i said, the theory is still unproved; But I belived it was fun trying to examinate this fascinating painting of reality

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Heis3nberg said:

If time is relatred to space and space-time is created by grains, on microscopic grains scale time doesn't exist.

Is that what it means? Or is it that time can’t be resolved at that scale?

 

Quote

If we try to shoot a bullet, we can calculate his speed, linear momentum, the Force with which he exits from the gun and exc..; we could also "see" these phisical parametres and decree their presence. But, what about the time? It is undetectable, maybe because it is only an illusion...

A bullet is significantly larger than the previously described scale, so why is there an issue?

Quote

Take your watch, you can see the second hand which is ticking; A second passes, but we haven't seen the time yet, we can only decree that second hand has made a circular movements of four degrees.

We can’t “see” the kinetic energy or momentum, either. Time isn’t spatial, so why would we see it?

 

[Heis3nberg]

On 7/2/2021 at 10:20 AM, swansont said:

 

We can’t “see” the kinetic energy or momentum, either. Time isn’t spatial, so why would we see it?

 

I'm sorry for the misunderstading; I wanted to say that we can decree the presence of these phisical parametres; I can "see" the speed of an object, I can't see his linear momentum or kinetic energy but I could decree their presence if the object impacted with others. But isn't the same for the time...

On 7/2/2021 at 10:20 AM, swansont said:

Is that what it means? Or is it that time can’t be resolved at that scale?

 

Spacetime ( so the time in all) is created by grains, they couldn't be affected by the time, because they create it

[MigL]

In the thread about the incompatibilities between GR and QM, Joigus makes some excellent points about how each model treats time ...

"For starters, quantum mechanics makes time a very special parameter. You need a distinguished time that goes hand in hand with a so-called Hamiltonian of the system (the energy operator). This Hamiltonian is also the mathematical operation that embodies time translation for the system.
GR, on the contrary, has no special time. There is no preferred coordinate system in GR. If you have no special time, you have no special Hamiltonian, which means you have no special time-updating law for the state."

Wheeler-DeWitt, being the basis for LQG, probably treats time similarly to GR, and not a 'special' parameter.

Edited July 3, 2021 by MigL

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Heis3nberg said:

I'm sorry for the misunderstading; I wanted to say that we can decree the presence of these phisical parametres; I can "see" the speed of an object, I can't see his linear momentum or kinetic energy but I could decree their presence if the object impacted with others. But isn't the same for the time...

You can’t tell that time passes? That’s too bad, but this isn’t generally the case for people.

[Phi for All]

On 7/3/2021 at 7:38 AM, Heis3nberg said:

I can "see" the speed of an object, I can't see his linear momentum or kinetic energy but I could decree their presence if the object impacted with others. But isn't the same for the time...

Have you ever been under a general anesthesia? When you wake up, you're acutely aware that it seems as if no time at all has passed, as opposed to sleeping, where you definitely know you've spent several hours in bed. Even if you're really tired and sleep all night through, the feeling that time has passed is strong. 

It's very bizarre NOT to feel time. When the doctor tells you to count backwards from 100, you make it to 97 and then you open your eyes and HOURS have passed, it feels like you've been tricked.

[Intoscience]

11 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Have you ever been under a general anesthesia? When you wake up, you're acutely aware that it seems as if no time at all has passed, as opposed to sleeping, where you definitely know you've spent several hours in bed. Even if you're really tired and sleep all night through, the feeling that time has passed is strong. 

It's very bizarre NOT to feel time. When the doctor tells you to count backwards from 100, you make it to 97 and then you open your eyes and HOURS have passed, it feels like you've been tricked.

It's quite interesting how our perception of time changes so dramatically depending on the situation and our cognitive mental state at the time. They say, time fly's when you are having fun, drags when you are bored or impatient, slows down when you are falling or involved in a crash...  yet it still measures 1 second per second for each observer in their own time frame. 

I've been under general anaesthetic a few times and the experience was as you mentioned quite unique compared to sleeping. I often wonder if a slow natural death would be a similar experience to general anaesthetic - rather sudden, or more like going to sleep. 

Going back to the OP, to determine if time exists independently I would think we have to define what time is. I view time as part of a frame work (space being the other element) that allows for change. A simple analogy is a photograph, yes, the physical photograph goes through constant change, but the subject matter is fixed. So that, if there is no change then there is no requirement for time. So for example if you have completely empty space (which might not even be a thing anyhow) where there is absolutely nothing happening, can time be measured or said to exist?  

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

if you have completely empty space (which might not even be a thing anyhow) where there is absolutely nothing happening, can time be measured or said to exist?  

If the space is completely empty, what’s making the assertions about existence or doing the measuring?

[Holmes]

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Have you ever been under a general anesthesia? When you wake up, you're acutely aware that it seems as if no time at all has passed, as opposed to sleeping, where you definitely know you've spent several hours in bed. Even if you're really tired and sleep all night through, the feeling that time has passed is strong. 

It's very bizarre NOT to feel time. When the doctor tells you to count backwards from 100, you make it to 97 and then you open your eyes and HOURS have passed, it feels like you've been tricked.

This kind of thing emphasizes how everything is subjective, the claim that there is an external world distinct from us observers is itself based on personal subjective experience.

Objective reality in an inference, a very reasonable and rational one but an inference nevertheless.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Holmes said:

This kind of thing emphasizes how everything is subjective, the claim that there is an external world distinct from us observers is itself based on personal subjective experience.

Objective reality in an inference, a very reasonable and rational one but an inference nevertheless.

Indeed, how can you cross the same twice when you do so every day? 

Edited July 5, 2021 by dimreepr

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

can time be measured or said to exist?  

Time most certainly be measured. 

[Phi for All]

38 minutes ago, Holmes said:

This kind of thing emphasizes how everything is subjective, the claim that there is an external world distinct from us observers is itself based on personal subjective experience.

Objective reality in an inference, a very reasonable and rational one but an inference nevertheless.

I disagree. I think this kind of thing emphasizes that time exists. 

[Holmes]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. I think this kind of thing emphasizes that time exists. 

Well the experience of time exists, you experience it, but it is subjective all experiences are subjective, if you think otherwise then I'm listening...

Edited July 5, 2021 by Holmes

[MigL]

Our perception of reality is subjective, of course.
But an objective reality does exist.
( we are as in the Indian parable of the blind men describing the lephant by touching certain parts of it )

[Holmes]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Our perception of reality is subjective, of course.
But an objective reality does exist.
( we are as in the Indian parable of the blind men describing the elephant by touching certain parts of it )

I know only what I perceive, everything I know (other than a self evident truth like "I exist") is assumed or inferred from what is assumed.

The proposition "an objective reality exists" is not falsifiable and so must be regarded as a belief.

I'm not maligning the claim or those who make it, but want to point out that this kind of claim is often made without its deep implications being recognized.

 

[MigL]

Or, it simply means that, like the blind men in the parable, we have only probed objective reality with limited 'senses'.
An example is probing the universe with EM radiation.
Who knows what wonders we may uncover when we can harness neutrino emssion, gravitational wave, or even graviton emission astronomy ?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Holmes said:

Well the experience of time exists, you experience it, but it is subjective all experiences are subjective, if you think otherwise then I'm listening...

Just because you don’t think two hours have passed doesn’t mean that it hasn’t. 

Time is not the same as time perception 

[Holmes]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Just because you don’t think two hours have passed doesn’t mean that it hasn’t. 

That's true.

Quote

Time is not the same as time perception 

How can we tell though which one is real or not?

Edited July 5, 2021 by Holmes

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

How can we tell though which one is real or not?

We do this in science by removing human perception and using instrumentation where appropriate 

[Holmes]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We do this in science by removing human perception and using instrumentation where appropriate 

You can't remove human perception though, how can you experience anything unless you perceive?

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

Well the experience of time exists, you experience it, but it is subjective all experiences are subjective, if you think otherwise then I'm listening...

Time exists that much is as certain as space existing. It is only how we perceive time that maybe at fault. A great man once said words to the effect "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour, chat with a hot blonde for an hour, and it seems like a minute.

Without time, everything would happen together, and the fact that there is no universal "NOW" in our universe, shows the legitimate existence of time.

I like Sean Carroll's version....

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by beecee

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Holmes said:

You can't remove human perception though, how can you experience anything unless you perceive?

That’s not the issue. You don’t have to perceive something for it to exist. You can be oblivious to it. 

[Holmes]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not the issue. You don’t have to perceive something for it to exist. You can be oblivious to it. 

In which case you cannot support the proposition that it does exist surely? you can only believe it exist.

 

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Time exists that much is as certain as space existing. It is only how we perceive time that maybe at fault. A great man once said words to the effect "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour, chat with a hot blonde for an hour, and it seems like a minute.

Without time, everything would happen together, and the fact that there is no universal "NOW" in our universe, shows the legitimate existence of time.

I like Sean Carroll's version....

 

Yes, I do understand this, my questions are about why do we think our perception of time is not just as real as someone else's.

"I spoke to the blond for a short while, she was cute" and "I waited in the dentist for ages and ages" might both be true statements.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, Holmes said:

In which case you cannot support the proposition that it does exist surely? you can only believe it exist.

You must be unfamiliar with modern physics; we don’t personally experience many things in it. We gather evidence the shows the entity exists. 

Belief doesn’t enter into it.

Quarks. Neutrinos. Atoms. Electrons. Neutrons. Protons.

 

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Yes, I do understand this, my questions are about why do we think our perception of time is not just as real as someone else's.

"I spoke to the blond for a short while, she was cute" and "I waited in the dentist for ages and ages" might both be true statements.

We are able to measure the passage of time.

 

4 minutes ago, Holmes said:

In which case you cannot support the proposition that it does exist surely? you can only believe it exist.

Many things exist that we really don't or nerver experience. I have never been to China. Does that mean China does not exist?

 

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself."

Henry Louis Mencken.