Does the time exist?

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

The thread's title is about the existence of time, that's a profound question that must include perception.

We do not measure the passage of time, we instead make two observations and then an inference is drawn that time has passed.

Stop being so bloody obtuse. Yes we do indeed measure the passage/passing of time, which makes it real, like space and like spacetime.

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

I am arguing that that perceived time is real, it exists and is observed by the individual, the calculated elapsed time differs from what they perceive.

No, a perception is simply in the mind. It is the measurement of what time has passed that is real.

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

I don't know and neither does anyone else, there is no proof that anything exists other than self, cogito, ergo sum.

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it".

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

I thought we were having a polite conversation, it seems not.

They are quotes that just happen to critique your nonsensical philosophical utterings, like the other just up there.

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

That's a philosophical claim not a scientific one.

"philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex".

Steve Jones

6 hours ago, Holmes said:

I think you are raising important questions, questions that go to the core of what science is.

Most of us without an agenda, know what science is, and the benefit of the scientific methodology. 

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?"

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

7 hours ago, Holmes said:

Yes, observers in different Galilean frames perceive different intervals.

Which as I said earlier, literally means there is no universal "NOW". Time is real, as real as space, the question is as Sean Carroll said, is it fundamental

Edited July 6, 2021 by beecee

[Holmes]

40 minutes ago, beecee said:

Stop being so bloody obtuse. Yes we do indeed measure the passage/passing of time, which makes it real, like space and like spacetime.

Stop being so ignorant. Measuring something is to make a claim about reality it is not reality.

Quote

No, a perception is simply in the mind. It is the measurement of what time has passed that is real.

More ignorance! everything you say or do begins in the mind, the mind is real.

Quote

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it".

Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

They are quotes that just happen to critique your nonsensical philosophical utterings, like the other just up there.

Oh, so we're quote mining now are we? 

Quote

"philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex".

Steve Jones

Steve Jones is ignorant.

Most of us without an agenda, know what science is, and the benefit of the scientific methodology. 

I don't think you do know, not at all, everything you say betrays ignorance. Science is rooted in unprovable beliefs if you do not understand that then you do not understand science and the limitations it has, so stop with the feigned erudition.

If you truly knew anything about science (and this extends to several other ignorant people here like IDontKNow) then you'd have the ability and confidence to attack what is said rather than who has said it.

Quote

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?"

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

Anyone named heavy-something would be well advised to gain some understanding of dieting, refusing a dinner once in a while might be good for him.

And so it goes on, the incessant attack upon the person not what the person says, you do know that this is how potentially good discussions descend into mindless bickering? of course you, but you don't care do you.

My responses are in red.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Stop being so ignorant. Measuring something is to make a claim about reality it is not reality.

Measuring time, and the fact that there is no universal "NOW", along with the fact that time is interchangeable with space, also supports the reality of time. Do you think space is real?

[Holmes]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Measuring time, and the fact that there is no universal "NOW", along with the fact that time is interchangeable with space, also supports the reality of time. Do you think space is real?

I'm done with this thread, the naivety and juvenility shown by some is quite ridiculous, claiming to know so much about science yet attacking a person or a person's integrity when he raises hard questions or forces you to explain your beliefs.

This is not science it is militant scientism.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Holmes said:

More ignorance! everything you say or do begins in the mind, the mind is real.

No time is real, it doesn't depend on the mind. You kick the bucket tomorrow, and time will still carry on for the rest of us.

9 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Oh, so we're quote mining now are we? 

Well yeah, OK, quote mining from reputable people/scientists etc, that support the superior scientific methodology.

[Holmes]

Just now, beecee said:

No time is real, it doesn't depend on the mind. You kick the bucket tomorrow, and time will still carry on for the rest of us.

Well yeah, OK, quote mining from reputable people/scientists etc, that support the superior scientific methodology.

You don't know the first thing about science.

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I don't think you do know, not at all, everything you say betrays ignorance. Science is rooted in unprovable beliefs if you do not understand that then you do not understand science and the limitations it has, so stop with the feigned erudition.

If you truly knew anything about science (and this extends to several other ignorant people here like IDontKNow) then you'd have the ability and confidence to attack what is said rather than who has said it.

And so it goes on, the incessant attack upon the person not what the person says, you do know that this is how potentially good discussions descend into mindless bickering? of course you, but you don't care do you.

My responses are in red.

What you say has been critiqued admirably by many, not particularly me as I aint a scientist. Stop playing the victim. Listen and learn. Science is actually rooted in common sense and logic, and its greatest crown is obviously that it can and does change with better, further observational data as time passes. This of course conflicts with what you are trying to mythically convey.

Edited July 6, 2021 by beecee

[MigL]

I'm sorry, I just had to give this a +1

59 minutes ago, Holmes said:

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?"

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

Anyone named heavy-something would be well advised to gain some understanding of dieting, refusing a dinner once in a while might be good for him.

Not that I approve of this type of discussion, but this is damned funny.

[Phi for All]

48 minutes ago, Holmes said:

You don't know the first thing about science.

!

Moderator Note

Well, I think you know by now that's a personal attack, since it's clear you aren't supporting the statement with any rigor. Why don't you take a nice break, get something to eat, and get the chip off your shoulder. You're making all of this far too personal.

 

[johnsankey]

Yes. cf. url deleted by moderator

Edited June 27, 2022 by Phi for All
post the info here, please

[johnsankey]

Time is defined by quantum mechanics. A photon with energy h (Planck's constant) behaves as though it were oscillating once per second. That's a definition. Atomic clocks are based on this.

Time is also defined by general relativity. Our earliest measures of time were the duration of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun, a rotation of the moon about a point on the earth, and of the earth around the sun in inertial space, measures based on general relativity. These were built into the genetic heritage of all life long before human beings arose. We still use them today, as our day, month and year.

By 1700, pendulum clocks showed that there were variations of about 50 seconds in the duration of a solar day. For the first time, mechanically measured time took precedence over astronomical time; remember, however that both are based upon general relativity.

 

Time direction is based on information, which has long sat uneasily in the world of mathematics, because it exists only as a collective property. One quantum by itself can not have a time direction. But, any multi-quantum system must have an arrow of time.

The essence of quantization is that information is limited - many 'different' particles are indistinguishable. We can not distinguish one electron from another, we can only observe the recent history of each one as reflected in its few quantum numbers.

With quantization and its consequent limitation of information, a closed universe progresses from an ordered state to a disordered state - a direction of time. And, when the number of particles is large, even as large as the number of molecules in a cubic millimetre of air, the disordered state is permanent, compared to the apparent lifetime of our universe anyway. We can't put things back the way they were, because we can never know how to do it. StarTrek-inspired teletransport of people will face the same limitation.

This, of course, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy is information with the sign wrong. Space-time is also dissipative with respect to information: the information obtainable from an object moving away from us is progressively reduced as its speed approaches the speed of light; anything heading away from us at the speed of light is no longer observable.

A direction of time is implicit in general relativity. Gravity is asymmetrical and self-reinforcing, and the appearance of a black hole (at this point in time, anyway) is irreversible. So, contrary to the view of many physicists whose formative years were spent solely with classical mechanics, time direction seems to be inherent in all aspects of our universe.

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, johnsankey said:

This, of course, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy is information with the sign wrong.

What?

Information is negative, somehow?

[johnsankey]

As entropy increases, information content decreases.

[studiot]

17 hours ago, johnsankey said:

Time is defined by quantum mechanics. A photon with energy h (Planck's constant) behaves as though it were oscillating once per second. That's a definition. Atomic clocks are based on this.

Time is also defined by general relativity. Our earliest measures of time were the duration of one rotation of the earth relative to the sun, a rotation of the moon about a point on the earth, and of the earth around the sun in inertial space, measures based on general relativity. These were built into the genetic heritage of all life long before human beings arose. We still use them today, as our day, month and year.

By 1700, pendulum clocks showed that there were variations of about 50 seconds in the duration of a solar day. For the first time, mechanically measured time took precedence over astronomical time; remember, however that both are based upon general relativity.

 

Time direction is based on information, which has long sat uneasily in the world of mathematics, because it exists only as a collective property. One quantum by itself can not have a time direction. But, any multi-quantum system must have an arrow of time.

The essence of quantization is that information is limited - many 'different' particles are indistinguishable. We can not distinguish one electron from another, we can only observe the recent history of each one as reflected in its few quantum numbers.

With quantization and its consequent limitation of information, a closed universe progresses from an ordered state to a disordered state - a direction of time. And, when the number of particles is large, even as large as the number of molecules in a cubic millimetre of air, the disordered state is permanent, compared to the apparent lifetime of our universe anyway. We can't put things back the way they were, because we can never know how to do it. StarTrek-inspired teletransport of people will face the same limitation.

This, of course, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy is information with the sign wrong. Space-time is also dissipative with respect to information: the information obtainable from an object moving away from us is progressively reduced as its speed approaches the speed of light; anything heading away from us at the speed of light is no longer observable.

A direction of time is implicit in general relativity. Gravity is asymmetrical and self-reinforcing, and the appearance of a black hole (at this point in time, anyway) is irreversible. So, contrary to the view of many physicists whose formative years were spent solely with classical mechanics, time direction seems to be inherent in all aspects of our universe.

 

 

1 hour ago, johnsankey said:

As entropy increases, information content decreases.

 

If what you say as gospel is actually true you will be able to support it with mathematics won't you ?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, johnsankey said:

As entropy increases, information content decreases.

Do you have a credible source for this?

 

[johnsankey]

studiot: Anything that is self-consistent can be mathematics. Physics is built on observables, reality.

My view was settled when I was able to observe a single ion of barium (and prove it) then play Maxwell's daemon to the outer electron of that ion. Everything was as real as golf balls. No forever-dancing mystics, no jumps faster than light, no worlds multiplying without limit...

That's why I skip mathematical dream states now, and stick strictly to observables. Mathematics doesn't support physics, it only tries to model it.

swansont: to me the work of Shannon makes the connection between entropy and information obvious. I'll see if I can sort out an approach that would be a 'credible source', since you obviously feel I'm not one.

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, johnsankey said:

studiot: Anything that is self-consistent can be mathematics. Physics is built on observables, reality.

My view was settled when I was able to observe a single ion of barium (and prove it) then play Maxwell's daemon to the outer electron of that ion. Everything was as real as golf balls. No forever-dancing mystics, no jumps faster than light, no worlds multiplying without limit...

That's why I skip mathematical dream states now, and stick strictly to observables. Mathematics doesn't support physics, it only tries to model it.

So you can't support your claims, you are only dreaming.

I am self consistent in my like of lasagne, so I am pleased to eat some.

I don't see any mathematics in that unless it is in the 10 of 10cc in their words

"Life is a lasagne."

 

Go well.

Edited June 29, 2022 by studiot

[Time Traveler]

On 7/5/2021 at 7:38 PM, MigL said:

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 ?

Humans are not programmed/endowed to perceive reality in its depth but are endowed to survive .... it seems that we humans will never know the true nature of reality .... the perception of 'reality' through light makes me think we are like naive viewers who watch an illusionist(and want to understand him) who show us persons dead hundred or thousand years ago who are in life, dinosaurus who are near us .... because our informations about universe are collected at a moment from very different periode of time .... we see in the same time old images of galaxies of billions of years togheter with galaxies old of millions of years .... many of them maybe dosnțt exist when we see them ....How could a naive to understand what makes a great illusionist ?

In my opinion if we could observe the true reality by absurdity we would not understand anything ... We by the representation of the reality ...for example :

by means of the colors that in reality do not exist, they are only a typical human perception due to the light, the eye, the brain and the laws of physics. ..

by perceiving the shapes of objects (imaginate that we could see the mixture of atoms in the composition of objects) ....

.....we found a way to maximize chances of survive

About the existence of  time ....  the time exists but the time is a human representation like colors,shapes of objects and the time is only the changes divided at speed of changes....Changes and Speed of changes are fundamental  properties of the Universe

[crazzy__physicist]

On 7/2/2021 at 12:19 PM, Heis3nberg said:

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

 

Very interesting point of view 

[mar_mar]

On 7/2/2022 at 7:46 PM, Time Traveler said:

Humans are not programmed/endowed to perceive reality in its depth but are endowed to survive .... it seems that we humans will never know the true nature of reality .... the perception of 'reality' through light makes me think we are like naive viewers who watch an illusionist(and want to understand him) who show us persons dead hundred or thousand years ago who are in life, dinosaurus who are near us .... because our informations about universe are collected at a moment from very different periode of time .... we see in the same time old images of galaxies of billions of years togheter with galaxies old of millions of years .... many of them maybe dosnțt exist when we see them ....How could a naive to understand what makes a great illusionist ?

In my opinion if we could observe the true reality by absurdity we would not understand anything ... We by the representation of the reality ...for example :

by means of the colors that in reality do not exist, they are only a typical human perception due to the light, the eye, the brain and the laws of physics. ..

by perceiving the shapes of objects (imaginate that we could see the mixture of atoms in the composition of objects) ....

.....we found a way to maximize chances of survive

About the existence of  time ....  the time exists but the time is a human representation like colors,shapes of objects and the time is only the changes divided at speed of changes....Changes and Speed of changes are fundamental  properties of the Universe

Well, well, well, I'm fascinated with this comment. 

I'm also curious what was the world like before Evolution has happened. 

On 7/5/2021 at 11:46 PM, beecee said:

 

 

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

 

I adore these questions about the existence. I think China exists because there's evidence and empirical experience of others of China. But in one's world China exist as an information, and not the experience. 

Though information can't be touched.

On 7/5/2021 at 11:46 PM, beecee said:

We are able to measure the passage of time.

These are only our concepts "passage" and "time". Judgements of changes. 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

what was the world like before Evolution has happened. 

When was that?

[Genady]

Reminder: this is Physics forum.

[iNow]

46 minutes ago, Genady said:

Reminder: this is Physics forum.

It’ll be the trash can soon enough given this posters pattern

[swansont]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Well, well, well, I'm fascinated with this comment. 

I'm also curious what was the world like before Evolution has happened. 

I adore these questions about the existence. I think China exists because there's evidence and empirical experience of others of China. But in one's world China exist as an information, and not the experience. 

Though information can't be touched.

These are only our concepts "passage" and "time". Judgements of changes. 

!

Moderator Note

As Genady has pointed out, this is a physics discussion. Please stay on topic.

 

[MigL]

On 7/2/2022 at 1:46 PM, Time Traveler said:

time is only the changes divided at speed of changes.

That's circular as 'speed' is defined as 'changes' divided by time.
So, if you do a little mathematics, as us Physicists are wont o do, rearranging gives     time = time ( which is not very deep ).

You're going to need a better definition.

One of the most tested and accurate modern theories is Quantum Mechanics ( the computer you are reading this on, proves its accuracy ).
QM only allows us to glimpse, and define  'reality' when we interact with something; an interaction like bouncing light off something so we can see it, or having something impact a screen or detector, or smashing high speed hadrons into something, etc.
Until that interaction happens to collapse the wave function and make  that something 'real', all we have is a mathematical construct that defines a distribution of probability densities.
And we know that there are no 'hidden' variables that would further define this intermediate 'reality' between interactions.

So, is there an actually real 'reality' ?
Is 'reality' like a computer game; a mathematical program that only displays 'reality' when the computer display 'interacts' with it ?
Frankly, I don't know and don't care.; let Philosophers worry about it.
As a Physicist ( I like to think ) I'm only concerned with how something affects me and other things.
IOW, how something interacts with everything else.
And that just so happens to be my previous definition of 'real'.