Does time exist?

[BlackHole]

But not all magnitudes depend on time. Time is the comprehension of change (as motion, evolution or degeneration) by the brain.

 

Time, space, distance and dimension are very abstract concepts indeed. They're all real but they aren't physical entities of nature.

[Spyman]

I voted "Yes", if distance exists so does time.

[Oxidizer]

Is possible to say that time exists since you are able to change it, or at least since you are able to modificate in some way the way it affects yourself. I explain:

 

As Einstein said: "If someone could run at the ligth speed, the time would pass more slowly to him than to someone who has been quiet during the same period".

 

So as time is something tha can be altered, it does exist.

[BlackHole]

I think that the real meaning is that when you reach the speed of light, time itself does not change but physical processes do slow down. Time dilation and process slowdown are equivalent. Therefore i really doubt whether any living creature can reach the speed of light.

[vrus]

I saw a documentary on time travel. It said that if u fire a bullet, it goes really fast. Now, if you ran and caught up with it, and your speed and the its speed was the same, then (You r a very good runner) the bullet would appear stationary. But if you went faster then the speed of light ???? Then you would see things going backward ??????????!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@%%%%%%%

 

That would be something like time travel ! (apparently)

[Oxidizer]

The Einstein's theory that I've mentioned before was based on the availabilty to reach the light speed, but is aplicable to any velocity. It means that when you move at any velocity the time affects you in a different way. The thing is that to notice this change either you run really fast (as the man in the topic above) or you run during endless time at low speed (as the marathon man). So is not necessary to reach the light speed.

[Guest azurithxeon]

Here's just my understanding of time.

 

1. Time is in a way it's own dimension.

2. Time goes only in one direction.

 

Now if you look at the other "visible" dimensions of our universe (up, down, forward, backward, etc.) you might realize that if you were to go from the center of the universe faster than light (I know it's impossible but just bear with me.) You'd eventually reach the edge of the universe, and nothing would be there, but not because the dimensions don't extend any farther, I'm thinking that they do stretch farther. Now if you wanted to you could go to the opposite side, and have an oppossed reading, or negative reading to your first.

 

That being said:

If you go forward in time, you can't go faster than the current 'now'.

(If you did, you can timetravel.)

Suppose you can timetravel faster than the current second. (Even by 1 second its very noticable.)

You'd never reach a block.

Think of a time dimension as a ray.

A ray moves infinately in one direction, as does time.

A ray cannot go farther in the opposite direction than the beginning of the ray.

(Unless time is a line, then it would extend in both directions infinately, but we will never know.)

 

I know that I'm asking you to "go faster than light or time" and I know it's impossible, so don't bash. I'm just tring to get you to understand what I'm presenting. And that seemed like the easiest representation. And that's my opinion.

[BlackHole]

Time exists but it's abstract and therefore an invariant. Time is the abstract inverse of change.

[1veedo]

It depends on what model/theory and therefore ultimately, who you ask.

 

One versions of quamtum cosmology treats time as another spacial dimention branching off at right angles (imaginary time) w/ a sortof probability axis on the other end.

 

Certain string theory modles have no time. I think one is called "f theory."

 

In one interpretation of quamtum theory, each instant in time is only a classical subcomponent of the total wavefunction of the universe. This would of course be directally connected to what we persieve as the past or what we would percieve as the future. So it's entirelly static. Ie, there is not one path "in time" to take, but it all sums out to the static wave function.

 

It's not like there is some sort of a "cosmic cache" anywhere. The past, just like the future is undetermined. The exact same principles of many worlds can be equally be applied and arrived at "many histories".

 

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

 

You cant jsut be all dogmatic and claim either one. It could exist as we percieve it, it could not. It could exist as described in some theories or it could not exist as described in other theories.

 

Nobody really knows the true nature of time so dont buckle down w/ a party just yet.

[BlackHole]

True it really depends who one asks.

 

I think time is not physical at all. So is space. It's all abstract. The physical is the absolute (or what we can measure directly). The absolute is the particles and their interactions.

[1veedo]

Measurment quantities are abstract as well Also, measurments are not absolute (common now, probability, uncertainty!).

 

So therefore, everythign is abstract!

[CanadaAotS]

1veedo: yah I heard that say for example the path of a photon can be going in 2 paths... (in other words its in 2 places at once) its actually placement is only set once it is observed... so say a photon 15 billion ly away follows a path around a galaxy (2 different paths). That photons path isnt set until we view it with our telescope... so really we would have just created the past... the past isnt determined till its viewed.

[CanadaAotS]

btw, the 2 places at once has to do with quantum physics

[CanadaAotS]

also time is supposed to just be an illusion to humans... each moment in time is always the same for eternity... humans are like projectors, they see each frame consectutively giving a sense of time...

 

none of this actually answers the question "does time exist" by the way... lol

[tskaze]

IMHO: Time does exist, but not necessarily in the way we precieve it. If it affects everyone chances are pretty good it exists (not for sure though). Its also possible that in a way a collective definition of time validates itself, but thats more the philosophical department.

[BlackHole]

True but let's not forget that mathematics alone is also philosophical.

[Oxidizer]

Either Philosophical or abstract time is something that is needed to make several things like: calculations, experiments.. and more social things like apointments between people, travelling from somewhere to somewhere else, or any other thing that any of us can think about, so as nowadays time is needed for almost everything is not possible, from my point of view to say that time does not exists. Explain what is it is different but it really exists.

[gisburnuk]

This topic is controversial and has unfortunately been active in the forum for a while.

Does time exist when things are in motion? Or does time exist when their is space?

Let's just imagine that a rocket is travellintg at the speed of c (light).

To the observor in the ship everything in the ship would remain static including his clock (time dilation). In fact if he was to throw something ahead of him that object including his arm would be exceeding the speed of light, but in reality the observor couldn't due to E=mc2. As we know light is constant and cannot gain extra velocity. So essentially to the observor in the rocket he would find himself unable to move and would be frozen in time, whether as I questioned earlier if time exists through motion?

[BlackHole]

Time dilation can be a misconception. Time does not dilate because it's an abstract invariant deduced from change (e.g motion). In reality it's the clocks which dilate due to energy conservation principles.

 

If time could dilate then the clocks would simply disappear from view.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Time dilation can be a misconception. Time does not dilate because it's an abstract invariant deduced from change (e.g motion). In reality it's the clocks which dilate due to energy conservation principles.

 

If time could dilate then the clocks would simply disappear from view.

 

Unless you mean Absolute time (which may not exist), time is not invariant.

 

Could you explain your last sentence?

[BlackHole]

Unless you mean Absolute time (which may not exist)' date=' time is not invariant.

 

Could you explain your last sentence?[/quote']

 

Time is the abstract inverse of change. The misconception is that it's not time which dilates, it's the clocks.

 

Time is not an independent variable.

[gib65]

This topic is controversial and has unfortunately been active in the forum for a while.

Does time exist when things are in motion? Or does time exist when their is space?

Let's just imagine that a rocket is travellintg at the speed of c (light).

To the observor in the ship everything in the ship would remain static including his clock (time dilation). In fact if he was to throw something ahead of him that object including his arm would be exceeding the speed of light' date=' but in reality the observor couldn't due to E=mc2. As we know light is constant and cannot gain extra velocity. So essentially to the observor in the rocket he would find himself unable to move and would be frozen in time, whether as I questioned earlier if time exists through motion?[/quote']

 

What could be said about his state of mind. Is his mind frozen as well? If not, then he would notice time passing even though no motion is possible in his frame of reference. But if his mind is frozen, then in all likelihood, the trip would be virtually instantaneous, there being no opportunity for him to be conscious of anything during the trip and no mental processing to store memories. Personally, I think his mind would be frozen since his brain and all the physical processes it undergoes couldn't move either, but I guess this all depends on how you think the mind relates to the brain.

 

Anyway, my answer to the whole controversy is that time is an order of events, and that order is defined by the basic cause-effect rules our universe is based on. That is, event P (for past) precedes event F (for future) because the state of event P (in terms of matter, energy, and momentum) is related to the state of event F by way of the rules of cause and effect at work in our universe. When someone mentions "time" to the lay person, they conceive of the common notion of "stuff happening" or "things undergoing change" and so on. This is the psychological form of time we humans experience, and this is primarily due to how the brain computes these cause-effect based rules. In other words, if you want to think of time beyond the regular human way of perceiving it, just image an abstract set of events that relate to each other such that one event plays the roll of cause and the other as effect. You can actually imagine this set as existing timelessly with only the events and the relations to define it.

[Chatha]

The question is whether space exists or not. Since matter occupies space then space/time exists as well.

[gib65]

I think space and time exist in the sense that they are a "something" rather than a "nothing". GR suggests this since it speaks of space and time curving and bending. How can a big field of nothing curve and bend?

[BlackHole]

Time is a function of space, though i like to consider space-time as requiring further interpretation.