is time real

[Liberator]

I am new here but this kind of question puzzles me too. I honestly think that time is just a perception of the speed of matter traveling. Like for example; when you go to sleep and you have slept for several hours when it feels like you have slept for only a few minutes. Your brain interprets time and when it is less active, I believe time is interpreted faster.

[thief]

Thief here...

You have jumped to a complex collection of ideas trying to answer the simple question.

 

Time does not exist.

It is a form of measurement.

Constructed in the mind of man.

It is a cognitive tool made by man, to serve man.

 

It is not a force...such as gravity.

It is not velocity...just part of the calculation.

And animals are coordinated with what appears to be a sense of time.

You have what it takes to tell the difference.

You don't confuse your ability to juggle with waking up in the morning.

Two different responses to two different stimuli.

[prateek]

I think time is like a continuously flowing wave.

It flows thru the whole fabric of universe.

[Megabrain]

I find the video amusing, Beer does the same thing, when pissed as a rat I'm the best driver in the world, I can think and perform a thousand times better, I have the strength of ten men, and feel no pain when injured.

 

As for time, it is just a label we attach to physical events, indeed the second itself is now defined in terms of mechanical motion of an atom

[Klaynos]

Thief here...

You have jumped to a complex collection of ideas trying to answer the simple question.

 

Time does not exist.

It is a form of measurement.

Constructed in the mind of man.

It is a cognitive tool made by man, to serve man.

 

It is not a force...such as gravity.

It is not velocity...just part of the calculation.

And animals are coordinated with what appears to be a sense of time.

You have what it takes to tell the difference.

You don't confuse your ability to juggle with waking up in the morning.

Two different responses to two different stimuli.

 

If time is not real yet velocity is, it should be possible to write down a velocity without using time. There is no formalisation of dynamics that doesn't use time, and there cannot be.

[Megabrain]

If time is not real yet velocity is, it should be possible to write down a velocity without using time. There is no formalisation of dynamics that doesn't use time, and there cannot be.

 

How about Distance traveled per 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

 

You may not agree with it but it is valid, events can be measured in this way.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Megabrain
Consecutive posts merged.

[Klaynos]

How about Distance traveled per 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

 

You may not agree with it but it is valid, events can be measured in this way.

 

Then I would tell you that you are just using different words for time. We can call it whatever we want, I'll agree that the word time, and certainly seconds are clearly human constructions, but time itself is not.

[Megabrain]

hmmm,

 

Your challenge was to express velocity without using time and your assertion that "there cannot be. "

 

I expressed such a velocity in terms of motion. Without using time.

 

I find it amusing that you say to the effect;

 

'I challenge you to define velocity using an alternative to time.'

 

And then when I acheive this this you simply say

 

'You are simply using an alternative to time'

 

Nowhere in my definition do I use any indication of time, this I think you ought to accept that velocity can be expressed other than by referring to seconds etc and that the argument of whether time is real or just a man made convenience would not be affected by such an acceptance. Neither of us can prove or otherwise the existence of time, we have no reference outside time. In terms of the other dimensions we can prove their existence.

 

Time varies upon where you are and at what velocity you may be travelling at. This is not true for rate of motion per atomic event.

 

In no other branch of science would such a loose variable be used as a fundamental unit of measurement, we do not use elastic bands to measure length, we should not use time to measure motion, indeed referring to time dilation, time is not the same for any two individuals. The number of atomic events will be constant, to one observer whether 5 units or a trillion.

 

 

I'm not clever enough to convince you but do not dismiss it out of hand, as I understannd it this idea is growing in popularity within the scientific community.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Megabrain

[Klaynos]

hmmm,

 

Your challenge was to express velocity without using time and your assertion that "there cannot be. "

 

I expressed such a velocity in terms of motion. Without using time.

 

I find it amusing that you say to the effect;

 

'I challenge you to define velocity using an alternative to time.'

 

And then when I acheive this this you simply say

 

'You are simply using an alternative to time'

 

Nowhere in my definition do I use any indication of time, this I think you ought to accept that velocity can be expressed other than by referring to seconds etc and that the argument of whether time is real or just a man made convenience would not be affected by such an acceptance. Neither of us can prove or otherwise the existence of time, we have no reference outside time. In terms of the other dimensions we can prove their existence.

 

I said you were using an alternative to the WORD time. The oscillations are a form of time measurement, the same as the second. Just because you don't use the word doesn't mean you are not using the concept.

 

Time varies upon where you are and at what velocity you may be travelling at. This is not true for rate of motion per atomic event.

 

Actualy it does, else atomic clocks would not be affected by relativity. They are.

 

In no other branch of science would such a loose variable be used as a fundamental unit of measurement,

 

Time is the most precisely measured unit we have.

 

we do not use elastic bands to measure length, we should not use time to measure motion,

 

The SI definition of a meter, is based on time.

 

indeed referring to time dilation, time is not the same for any two individuals. The number of atomic events will be constant, to one observer whether 5 units or a trillion.

 

The number measured will change between frames just as any other time measurement will.

 

I'm not clever enough to convince you but do not dismiss it out of hand, as I understannd it this idea is growing in popularity within the scientific community.

 

I am not dismissing it, I am trying to show you that what you think of as just oscillations is in fact a way (and a way used in atomic clocks) to measure time.

[Megabrain]

If I stand close to a black hole and you stand closer, each of us has a watch and can see an atomic event counter, it registers the oscillations of a caesium atom, after I have counted 1 million oscillations I join you and ask how many you have counted since we started counting at the same instant. we will both have counted the same number of oscillations but our watches will show a different time. time varies from one place to another.

 

Unfortunately from your replies you are merely regurgitating the works of others, take a break and think for yourself. The unit of time is the second, defined from the motion of an atom.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Megabrain

[alan2here]

Humans are animals.

 

Think of reality as being 4D (X, Y, Z, Time). You would not say does X exist.

 

There are many other better descustions of time, lets prune the non video related posts out of this thread and make it a thread about the silly video.

[Klaynos]

If I stand close to a black hole and you stand closer, each of us has a watch and can see an atomic event counter, it registers the oscillations of a caesium atom, after I have counted 1 million oscillations I join you and ask how many you have counted since we started counting at the same instant. we will both have counted the same number of oscillations but our watches will show a different time. time varies from one place to another.

 

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but experimental evidence says you're wrong and that we would have counted a different number.

 

Unfortunately from your replies you are merely regurgitating the works of others, take a break and think for yourself. The unit of time is the second, defined from the motion of an atom.

 

The second part of this statement contradicts your first statement, and I think you'll find if you ask researchers in the area then you can count oscillations without movement, and the best atomic clocks are those with the least movement.

 

Please try not to be condescending when I'm trying to help you to learn what we already have significant evidence for.

[Megabrain]

???? You mis-understand, (or I did not make myself clear) - in my previous example the intention was that we were both looking at the SAME atomic event counter, each counting the same set of events, after 1 million of these we compare the time from our stop watches.

 

 

I was not condescending, If I called you a dumb assed bastard and you weren't that might be but I'd be insulting all those other Dumb assed bastards out there wouldn't I?

 

Nothing personal, just I have become addicted to forums, unless I can a life ban from them all I'll probably lose my next job as well..... If you do, PLs delete my Avatar - THanx.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Megabrain

[Klaynos]

???? You mis-understand, (or I did not make myself clear) - in my previous example the intention was that we were both looking at the SAME atomic event counter, each counting the same set of events, after 1 million of these we compare the time from our stop watches.

 

OK, watching teh same counter, sorry I misread what you were saying. That makes matters significantly harder, and you'd need to clarify the situation further, as it looks like a bit of frame mixing is going on.

 

May I suggest we take a step back from GR and just concentrate on SR.

 

Consider 2 frames,

 

Frame A is at rest and contains a clock (CA) and an atomic oscillator (OA).

 

Frame B is moving with velocity v (v>0.9c) relative to A and contains a clock (CB) and an atomic oscillator (OB).

 

Using CA frame A counts x oscillations on OA, and y oscillations on OB.

 

Using CB frame B counts x oscillations on OB, and y oscillations on OA.

 

Once you start moving between frames you need to be careful as accelerations will also have some relativistic effect...

[swansont]

 

Nowhere in my definition do I use any indication of time, this I think you ought to accept that velocity can be expressed other than by referring to seconds etc and that the argument of whether time is real or just a man made convenience would not be affected by such an acceptance. Neither of us can prove or otherwise the existence of time, we have no reference outside time. In terms of the other dimensions we can prove their existence.

 

You've just changed definitions — not referring to seconds because you've called them something else does not mean you have eliminated time.

 

Time varies upon where you are and at what velocity you may be travelling at. This is not true for rate of motion per atomic event.

 

 

No, that's not true. The rate at which an atomic state oscillation occurs is affected by relativity. It's something that has to be accounted for in atomic clocks, and the errors from the effects are a reason why efforts are made to build clocks with less motion on the part of the atoms. (fountains vs beam clocks)

 

In no other branch of science would such a loose variable be used as a fundamental unit of measurement, we do not use elastic bands to measure length, we should not use time to measure motion, indeed referring to time dilation, time is not the same for any two individuals. The number of atomic events will be constant, to one observer whether 5 units or a trillion.

 

Since length contracts from relativity, we do actually use a variable length standard. We have to — that's how nature behaves. Time and distance are frame dependent.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

???? You mis-understand, (or I did not make myself clear) - in my previous example the intention was that we were both looking at the SAME atomic event counter, each counting the same set of events, after 1 million of these we compare the time from our stop watches.

 

That's not an experiment that could determine if the atomic oscillations are affected by relativity, so what's the point?

[thief]

Thief here...

Allow me to ask this question.

I must do so in this way.

 

I see myself as an observer...watching an object move from point A to B.

The distance let's say is one thousand light years.

I need to live 1000years to make the observation.

At no 'time' does the distance shrink.

At no 'time' does the clock change it's ticking.

 

Does the object age?

[gre]

No. If moving at 'c' its time would stop, I believe.

[swansont]

No. If moving at 'c' its time would stop, I believe.

 

If it's massive it can't move at c, so let's limit ourselves to what physics permits us to see.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Thief here...

Allow me to ask this question.

I must do so in this way.

 

I see myself as an observer...watching an object move from point A to B.

The distance let's say is one thousand light years.

I need to live 1000years to make the observation.

At no 'time' does the distance shrink.

At no 'time' does the clock change it's ticking.

 

Does the object age?

 

Yes, it ages. It doesn't age 1000 years, though — the amount will depend on its speed relative to you.

[thief]

Thief here...

If aging is repressed by high velocity then 'time' has a physical effect.

So you would contend that time is a substance or a force?

[swansont]

Thief here...

If aging is repressed by high velocity then 'time' has a physical effect.

So you would contend that time is a substance or a force?

 

No, and no.

 

I can pop something in the microwave for a minute and heat it up. Time doesn't do that.

[NowThatWeKnow]

...I need to live 1000years to make the observation...

 

It depends where you are observing from. From point A it would take over 2000 years and from point B it would happen quick.

[thief]

Thief here...

So the previous two posts lend more confusion.

First to say time has no substance or force.

Then location of observation changes the time value.

 

I say...

If time is neither force nor substance, then it has no effect,

and anything moving away from me at the speed of light,

is also arriving at the speed of light at point 'B'.

[gre]

I'd say space-time is more of a substance like mass.. Which can't exist without space and time, right?

[swansont]

Thief here...

So the previous two posts lend more confusion.

First to say time has no substance or force.

Then location of observation changes the time value.

 

I say...

If time is neither force nor substance, then it has no effect,

and anything moving away from me at the speed of light,

is also arriving at the speed of light at point 'B'.

 

So all things are either a force or a substance? Can I borrow a cup of entropy?

[thief]

Thief here...

I reviewed some articles on entropy.

Entropy appears to be another calculation technique....

similar to time.

 

Yes of course, the small anomalies of our universe must be accounted for.

That's why the second law of thermodynamics was written....

to account for the leftovers from the first law.

 

Time and entropy are calculations.

 

If time were of substance, could you not examine the substance and be sure the quantity of time within it?

If distance must be tweaked to make the equation work...

what are we doing?

 

I would like this moment to report of a hyper-cold experiment,I saw on tv.

Apparently some one is very close to absolute zero...

and they have made some observations not expected.

 

I cannot confirm this....the speed of light can be slowed...a lot!

As it passes through as near zero material, I assume a frozen gas, the light wave can be slowed to that of a bicycle.

 

If the constants we use for calculation, are not so constant...then what can we say with certainty?

What would dear Albert say...

energy equals the velocity of a bicycle,squared?