Is Time An Illusion?

[swansont]

The experiment I heard about did require a high speed jet to fly one clock around the world, and this to only register fractions of a second differences between clocks. What is the slowest speed that results in differences in time?

 

It depends on how good your clock is. Highway speeds have registered it.

 

I'm not sure what this means? I thought the experiments with satellites and jets show that the high speed moving clock is the clock that is effected?

 

That's because they are in accelerating reference frames, so you know who is moving. If you didn't have an acceleration, there would be no way to prove which one was moving. We almost always assume we are at rest, but that's not from the physics

 

 

So, both mechanical and electronic clocks are effected in the exact same way. Say they are both .2 of a second behind the ground clocks? Is this the type of result?

 

Before I forget, thank you Swansont for the info you provide here.

 

Usually the number is smaller, and for mechanical clocks their inherent flaws will often swamp this kind of difference. But in principle, yes.

[Edtharan]

I understand what you are trying to say Edtharan, but when dealing with stuff like time, it's better only to express our personal opinions or the views we agree with and try not to give a strict definition to something which itself is a true mystery! I hope you understand!

Actually I think that "personal" perception of time is what needs to be eliminated. It has been clearly shown that our perceptions of the passage of time can be skewed the fact that our perceptions are just an interperetation of the outside world.

 

So any definition of time that is based on these personal perceptions is necesarily dubious. So the exploration of the philosphy of "what is time" will just lead us to an endless circle of argument that runs: My perception of time ios different to your perception of time so Time does not exist as such.

 

Actually, this is both right and wrong. It is right in so far as it deals only with our perceptions of time, but not with the physical reality of time.

 

Aristotle, Plato and St. Augustine did not have access to modern science adn the experiments that have been performed. The maths that would have allowed them to understand the results of these experiements were not around when they were alive. They explored the "philosophy" of time as they had no physical model and mathematical understanding to which to base a non philosophical understanding of Time on.

 

So I agree with you when it comes to determining what our experience of tiem is like. Then we can discuss our personal experiences. However, I disagree that this is the only method of the expoloration of what time is.

 

Well, because it's a subjective phenomenon whose existence is directly depended from the observer.

As I was saying, our perception of time is highly subjective to the observer (not as in relitivty, but in how our brain processes, stores and retrieves information).

 

It is only a mystery because we want our personal experiences to match with what reality is. THer eis no reason that our personal experience and perceptions has to match with an outside reality. All that needs to occur is that our perceptions allow us to operate within that outside reailty.

 

Our personal experiences do not match with reality. All our senses interperet and process (quite hevily) what they recieve into what we "experience".

 

I have give one example already, namely colour. But other parts of our visual system are also heavily interpereted too. If you extend your arm to it full length out in front of you, then your thumbnail is about all of the world you can actually see in detail at any one time (this also includes colour). The further out from that you go, the less detail (and colour definition) you get.

 

But, we think we see the world in a "panoramic" like display. You can probably see all the letters on your keyboard in detail, and you know that the coverage of that keyboard is much greater than the area of your thumbnail at arm's length.

 

So, either what we know of the biology of the eye is completely incorrect, or our perceptions of the world do not neccesarily match reality.

 

Even what we see is not a "live feed", it is delayed by around 1/3 of a second (there is a fast and crude pathway for visual perceptions used during extreme events which takes around 1/10 of a second to reach awareness and the glitching of this pathway is the cause of deja-vu).

 

So if our perceptions can not be relied apon to give us a view of reality, we must attempt to eliminate our perceptions from considderation. This means that we should avoiding "to express our personal opinions" as these are by necessity biased by our perceptions (which have been shown to be unreliable).

 

This is what I meant by: Our perception of time is an illusion.

 

Our perception of it is an illusion, but only in so far as it is an interperetation of reality given to us by our senses.

 

But Time as an aspect of the operation of the Universe, is not.

 

Someone mentioned that we measured distance by usign two points on a ruler. Well we also measure Time by two points as well (just not in space), although we tend to call them "Events".

 

However, the two points on the ruler are not distance. They are what we use to mark out a specific "reference" distance.

 

The points we use to measure time are also like this. They do not define time, but define our "refernece" measurment of Time.

 

Time is what exist between the events. Time is not the events themselves, but what seperates the events. Just like distance is not the marks on a ruler, but what we use the ruler to measure.

 

Distance is what sperates two points in space. Time is what seperates two events.

 

Why do we remember the past? Why don't we see the future rather then remembering the past?

Well we could go to a symantic answer to this: If we remembered the future, then we would call it the past.

 

Ok, but more seriously.

 

This is just an analogy, so don't try to push it too far or it will break.

 

Imagine a "Pony Express" main delivery system. Each rider passes the package on to the next at specific waystations. Each Way station is the equivilent of an "Event", what we use to mark out notches on the "ruler" of time.

 

Now, as the package (present) move through the system, it follows a series of waystations (events). But because the waystations are not placed ontop of each other (there is seperation betweent them) then what occures at one waystation will cary on with the package after it has been through that station.

 

So a station has knock on effects on all waystations that lie further along the path that the package takes.

 

You could interperet this as a waystation closer to the package's origin "caused" the "Effect" at a waystation further along.

 

Now, for this analogy I have had to completely convert Time into Space and Space into Time.

 

The way our brain works is by events. One Neuron releases a neurotransmitter (event) and is picked up by the next neuron (another event), and so on. Because of this we can get confused that it is the Events themselves that make up time. However, the events only mark out a "Distance" (if you will) of Time.

 

Which leads onto this:

Why do we use second, and hours, and years to measure the time, when there is nothing absolute which would support our views?

Second, Hours, Minute, Years, Months, and so on are just two events. The striking of a bell, the click of a ratchet, the changeing phases of a moon. These are all two events seperated by Time.

 

We use such definitions as they are a standard "reference" as to the seperation of two events. Just as we use Centimetre, Metre, ect as standard references as to distance.

 

We don't say that just because we use terms like "Kilometre" that there is nothing to support our views that Distance exists.

 

We, that is as in Human, need to break up things into manageable chunks. Whether this is with Distance, Weight, or Time, these chunkings are simply a human invention and do not necesarily reflect the underlying reality. We break the continuum up and then teach our selves to percieve the world as if it is made up of those chunkcs, but the continuum still exists even thoguh we percieve it as chunky.

[thedarkshade]

Actually I think that "personal" perception of time is what needs to be eliminated. It has been clearly shown that our perceptions of the passage of time can be skewed the fact that our perceptions are just an interperetation of the outside world.

I think removing personal interpretation would actually mean the same as removing creative abilities!

 

So any definition of time that is based on these personal perceptions is necesarily dubious. So the exploration of the philosphy of "what is time" will just lead us to an endless circle of argument that runs: My perception of time ios different to your perception of time so Time does not exist as such.[.QUOTE] In a bizarre way you are right, but a concept that does not have a clear scientific definition is on the hand of philosophy and back there you do the things you want to, so yes, we can't dismisses cases in which time is said to not exist since someone thinks it's like that by the way he/she judges things, but we can't really do anything about.

 

Aristotle, Plato and St. Augustine did not have access to modern science adn the experiments that have been performed. The maths that would have allowed them to understand the results of these experiements were not around when they were alive. They explored the "philosophy" of time as they had no physical model and mathematical understanding to which to base a non philosophical understanding of Time on.

OK, that is well understood, but I don't think even nowdays we could perform any experiment by which we could say "there you go, this is time!". It's beyond physical and objective features and you have said that too!

 

So I agree with you when it comes to determining what our experience of tiem is like. Then we can discuss our personal experiences. However, I disagree that this is the only method of the expoloration of what time is.

Well, when science cannot help to determine something in a scientific way, then you're left with only philosophy and personal opinions. Of course this is not the only way of finding out what time is, but yet it's not worthless and it's worth doing as long as there is nothing about it is pure science!

 

So, either what we know of the biology of the eye is completely incorrect, or our perceptions of the world do not neccesarily match reality.

That is a typical skepticism! As long as our perceptions for the reality around us are good enough to make us possible understand, explore and live in peace with that reality, I see no reason why such dose of skepticism is necessary!

 

This is what I meant by: Our perception of time is an illusion.

Perhaps our current perception of what time is makes us think of it as an illusion. Some things truly violate common sense, but that does not mean it's not true! If you told ancient men that sun has 1 million times the volume of earth you'd be called a mad man! Same thing applies to time too! Perhaps in the near or far future mankind will had developed a better understanding of what time is and then the word illusion would be absolutely meaningless when referring to time. It's on the human nature always to developed in a better stage and at some point mankind will have completely understood what time actually is. We cannot dismiss possibilities like this! Scientists though that we would never be able to see atom either, but that now has been achieved using "scanning tunneling microscopes". We won't literally see time but we can't simply say we will not understand time since it is an illusion

 

Time is what exist between the events. Time is not the events themselves, but what seperates the events. Just like distance is not the marks on a ruler, but what we use the ruler to measure.

This is a typical example that clearly shows that time is depended form the observer. If event didn't exist neither would time!

 

Second, Hours, Minute, Years, Months, and so on are just two events. The striking of a bell, the click of a ratchet, the changeing phases of a moon. These are all two events seperated by Time.

OK, fair enough! But since in our everyday life seconds, hours, month years refer mean time, then you sentence would better sound "Second, Hours, Minute, Years, Months, and so on are just what is between two events.". You just said that above!

[Edtharan]

This is a typical example that clearly shows that time is depended form the observer. If event didn't exist neither would time!

Even if the "Events" themselves didn't exist, then Time could still exist. However, if time is only defined by the events, then without the events Time would not exist.

 

An event is a point in Time. Just like a point on a ruler.

 

Time is not defined by the Events, but the (non spatial) speration of the events is Time.

 

It is a difficult concept, but to understand it you have to put Time on an equal footing as Space. This is what relitivity does and it has been shown to be a very accurate descrition of reality.

 

As relitivty shows, Time is a concrete as Space. So Time in this sense is not an illusion, and has little to do with Human perceptions.

 

We get into trouble trying to understand Relitivity according to our perceptions because our perceptions have not evolved to operate within such an environment. Therefore we have a perception of Time that is different (skewed if you will) from the reality of Time. Therefore our perception of Time (according to the definition of Illusions posted earlier) is an Illusion.

 

So there exists a "Time" that is not dependant on our perceptions, and our perception of that "Time" is not the same as the reality of that "Time".

 

Time (as in the physical property of the Universe) is not an Illusion, but our perception of it is an Illusion.

[Klaynos]

That test that is done with two super accurate atomic clocks. (A) One that is left on the ground, and B) one that is flown around the world at super sonic speeds.

(B) gives the result of being slightly behind (A) in time. This is supposed to give proof of time slowing down at high speeds.

Is there other theories that go against this theory? Can physical forces like gravity, magnetism, or whatever, be what is truly behind the clock slowing down?

 

It doesn't just change, it changes by a predictable amount, which was predicted by relativity... no other theory accounts for this as accurately as relativity.

[dichotomy]

it's not some property of the clock itself that causes these differences, but instead some fundamental property of the universe.

 

Ok, a 'fundamental property' that we are calling time, but it could be something other than what we think of as time to be. I'm thinking past, present and future time here.

 

Does relativity predict the potential for time to stand still? And for time to run backwards? Or is this urban legend stuff?

 

I can't help but feel that speed is incorrectly mistaken as being time, and it is just speed that we are really observing. I suppose I'm more comfortable with speed because it can be observed, where time is just wishy washy conceptual stuff.

[iNow]

Does relativity predict the potential for time to stand still? And for time to run backwards? Or is this urban legend stuff?

 

I'll have to pivot the details of your question to the members here who are much more knowledgable on relativity than I, but IIRC...

 

If it were possible to measure something from the frame of reference of a photon (which it's not, since it doesn't have a frame of reference), then you could sort of say that you were everywhere all at once, or... time stood still.

 

Per travelling into the past (or time running "backwards," it seems that according to calculations you would have to travel faster than the speed of light, but since no obect with mass can even travel AT the speed of light, that's not likely either.

 

Technically, an antiparticle is the same as a regular particle travelling backward in time, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you had in mind.

 

There is some very real science and math underneath this stuff, but when it comes to the things that average guys like you and me discuss, it tends to be urban legend stuff.

[dichotomy]

BUMP!

 

Does relativity predict the potential for time to stand still? And for time to run backwards? Or is this urban legend stuff?

[Nick_Spanich]

Isn't time how long it takes earth to rotate in a circle. And around the sun?

[iNow]

Isn't time how long it takes earth to rotate in a circle. And around the sun?

 

While these two terms are related, what you describe above is not "time," but instead better referred to as "duration." In your example, the "durations" are 1 day and 1 year, respectively.

 

So, time: At what time did you brush your teeth this morning? (it gives another coordinate point for the event (location + time = event).

 

So, duration: How long did it take you to brush your teeth this morning? (it is just a measurement of elapsed time units... like seconds, minutes, etc... all defined by humans).

[Edtharan]

Isn't time how long it takes earth to rotate in a circle. And around the sun?

A common misunderstanding.

 

What you are describing is a way of defining two Events. These events are what we use to measure a period of time, not Time itself. Just as the two ends of a ruler allow us to measure distance, but are not what distance is. Events are like the two ends of a ruler, they allow us to measure, but they are not what we are measuriing.

 

Does relativity predict the potential for time to stand still? And for time to run backwards? Or is this urban legend stuff?

In a way, yes. However, for you to experience Time standing still you would have to accelereate to the speed of light, and that is imposible. Time running backwards is even more problematic as you would first have to accelerate to the speed of light and then, accelerate past it (again impossible).

 

Now although relitivity does say that it is imposible for anything to be accelerated to the speed of light (or past it), it does not say anything about something being created with that velocity.

 

Light is one example of something being created already moving at the speed of light. However, we have never detected soomething moving faster than the speed of light (the name for these hypothetical particles are "Tachyons").

 

Of course we are taling about "Speedof light in a vaccum". Light does travel slower in other mediums (like water or air) and you can have a particle traveling faster than the light travels in that medium. It is called Cherenekov (spelling ?) radiation. It is a bit like a sonic boom with light (Photonic Boom? ). However, in this situation you don't get backwards in time travel as the particle is still not traveling faster than light in a vacuum.

 

So, relitivity does awwlo "Stationart" time (and reverse time) but it also says that they are physically impossible for us to achieve .

 

Also, this "Time Travel" would be relative (hence the name Relitivity ). A hypothetical traveler traveling at the speed of light would not see their own time stopped, but would see the rest of the universe operating at an infinite speed (they would see time sped up). The rest of the Universe would then see the Traveler "frozen" in time.

[Nick_Spanich]

While these two terms are related, what you describe above is not "time," but instead better referred to as "duration." In your example, the "durations" are 1 day and 1 year, respectively.

 

So, time: At what time did you brush your teeth this morning? (it gives another coordinate point for the event (location + time = event).

 

So, duration: How long did it take you to brush your teeth this morning? (it is just a measurement of elapsed time units... like seconds, minutes, etc... all defined by humans).

 

Thanks, I understand now.

[dichotomy]

Also, this "Time Travel" would be relative (hence the name Relitivity ). A hypothetical traveler traveling at the speed of light would not see their own time stopped, but would see the rest of the universe operating at an infinite speed (they would see time sped up). The rest of the Universe would then see the Traveler "frozen" in time.

 

What, frozen like this...

 

I'm guessing that because we perceive light as frozen, a person travelling at light speed would appear frozen also?

 

Thanks for the explanation. Relativity seems both extremely useful/practical at one level and completely unprovable fantasy at the other extreme. I like it!

[foursixand2]

my reply comes without reading the other posts in this thread, but i intend to momentarily. My answer to the question, taking it in its literal sense, no. But this question infact requires clarification and is probably carrying the baggage of several other questions. The reason i answer no to the literal question is some very simple logic: an object MOVES from point A, to point B, Whilst another object travels this same distance with greater speed than the first object. Perhaps is was only a small measure in the lead, or maybe it traveled the distance twelve times over before the other object arrived. By this example i can see no other conclusion than that time is inherently an inextricable element of any type of motion. One object traveled a distance in less time, while the other took more time. And i cant think of any more viable definition of time.

 

But the baggage the question is carrying pertains to our perceptions. If you strip it down to essential simplicity this issue becomes philosophically boring. Of coarse our perception of time is superficial, subjective, relative, etc, etc. That speaks of nothing more than any arbitrary measurement. No matter how you measure it, time is an actual phenomenon. Some things move faster than others, thus some things make motion in space, requiring either more or less time relative to other objects. Any more speculation is a waste of time.

[Klaynos]

Isn't time how long it takes earth to rotate in a circle. And around the sun?

 

I would describe that as a measure of time.

[elas]

Inow

 

I'm of the frame of mind that it's always the present, no matter where or when you are, it's right now. An "infinite now" as it were.

 

Many years ago I wrote:

 

The time is now

This fleeting moment is the eternal moment of reality.

 

but, I wonder if anyone has written a serious paper on the proposition that 'The only time is now'.

 

My inspiration came from my childhood days. We use to ask an elderly gent for the time, so that we knew when to go home. As a child, I once asked for 'the correct time' and was promptly told that "there is only one time, there is no such thing as the incorrect time"; the obvious truth of that reply has stayed with me.

 

Of course, in mathematical terms recorded time is a unit for the measurement of history, past, present and future. but, in reality, there is no escape from Now.

[thedarkshade]

but, I wonder if anyone has written a serious paper on the proposition that 'The only time is now'.

It has actually! St. Augustin (philosopher) spent a lot of time trying to explain time and he ended up with: "I know what time is, but if someone asks me to explain what time is, then I don't know what time is!"

 

And a short quote from him about 'time is now':

"People mistakenly say there are three times: past, present and future. There is only present time that refers to the past, present time that refers to the present and present time that refers to the future."

[gcol]

I reluctantly agree with 'shade and elas.

 

Anything else is but the fevered wishful thinking of "adults" who still believe in fairy tales. Our imaginations can run free, but our feet should reassuringly remain rooted in reality.

[thedarkshade]

Anything else is but the fevered wishful thinking of "adults" who still believe in fairy tales. Our imaginations can run free, but our feet should reassuringly remain rooted in reality.

And I feel like this is just a fancy way of saying 'We literally do not understand time. Everything we know about time is pure product of our imagination and can change due to different ways of thinking what time is!'

 

That's sad, but it's got truth inside:-( !

[elas]

thedarkshade

 

Thanks for your reply.

[iNow]

Of course, in mathematical terms recorded time is a unit for the measurement of history, past, present and future. but, in reality, there is no escape from Now.

 

That sounds so diabolical... I like it.

[thedarkshade]

any time elas, that's what we do here:D

[Norman Albers]

Time is the procession of wave states which are locally experienced (in reasonbable locales) as radiation and matter. How do I define an atomic clock? By measuring any process against another "standard". This standard is found to be Lorentz invariant. Am I helping, well, I'm not sure. "Lorentz invariant" is just another way of saying "different reference frames". When you read General Relativity you get statements like "thus t is not a useful marker in the large".

[iNow]

Norman,

 

Having read your posts, I know you've studied this in greater detail than myself, but are you basically positing that time is relative, and hence undefinable?

 

Sorry if that sounds silly, but it's an honest question.

[Norman Albers]

Frevin's sake, nothing is sillier than time. How can you define process???!?!!! Measures are completely relative, but this does not say they are undefinable! OK, specifics: there is a "spacetime fabric" whose charcteristics we are discussing. It is Lorentz-transformable, meaning that processes are the same in the frame of reference of different observers, but they will not be measured the same from one frame to another. Thus the twin traveler paradox from velocity reference frames; and more obviously, perhaps, the slowing of clocks closer to a great mass, like a star or collapsed body. I have complained and hereby do so about using discussions "in proper time", if this proper time does not manifest in our conceivable universe. This is problematic in extreme situations, which is why I referred in some other thread to "problems of embeddedness". We are talking about the nature of time and change in high energy/density states, and we'd all better be humble. The entire fabric of mass and radiation, though I do not know what to say about the DARK STUFF, behaves as per this fabric we are discussing.