Does time exist?

[ydoaPs]

I have read several threads stating time doesn't exist. I want to see how many think it does and how many don't think that it exists.

[Rakdos]

Time passing is just a malfunction in our nerovus system

[ydoaPs]

ok, how can our nervous system work without time?

[senexa]

IMO, time exists as a midplane human mental construct but does not exist in macro or micro planes or where there is no observer.

 

Time is individual to the observer and dependent upon the movement or lack thereof of the observer.

 

It is essentially a human invention that allows social interaction and measurability of the environment, and is particularly European.

 

There are some fascinating studies of conceptual time (or the lack thereof) in non-European, ancient civilizations and current aboriginal cultures. Just put 'concept of time' into Vivisemo or Google and there are at least a dozen studies of different cultures available on the Web.

 

I also again would recommend "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity", by Peter Lynds and "Time in Physics" by David L. Thompson.

 

This is probably one of the most important questions being researched right now.

[ydoaPs]

One object with speed has to have time. It takes time to get from one point to another. Therefore, time is not a human invention. How can humans invent a concept without time.

[ceres]

Isnt't motion defined as movement respective of time? So no time, no motion?

[J_Man]

I hate the argument "no time, no movement". It works like this, everything is live, and there is no physical past, only memory of prevouis events. The future is not defined yet. We are just existing and things happen, why do events need to be recorded on some magical physical timeline? Anyway if time does exist and time travel is possible, we'll never know because whoever discovers it will change time even if its by accident. If time does exist we're probably in a alternate timeline.

[Sayonara]

A: One object with speed has to have time.

B: It takes time to get from one point to another.

C: Therefore' date=' time is a human invention.[/quote']

How does C follow B?

 

The word "time" is a human invention, so is our concept (or concepts) of it. But they both describe, and only describe, something that happens, so I'm going with "yes it exists".

[Leroy]

The future is not defined yet. We are just existing and things happen, why do events need to be recorded on some magical physical timeline? Anyway if time does exist and time travel is possible, we'll never know because whoever discovers it will change time even if its by accident. If time does exist we're probably in a alternate timeline.

 

I'm no expert, but putting the words magical physical as to describe something doesn't seem very plausible... sorta oxymoron

 

and the way i imagine time is that its like a tree. a central timeline is the trunk. this splits up into multiple roots which in turn split up as well. If one went back in time, you would basically go to a time and a new 'root' would 'grow'. The timeline you were in isn't accesable to you any more, but the people who don't time travel never notice the difference (except the time traveller wil be gone)

[YT2095]

time is just a way to measure change.

 

Yes, it exists

[J_Man]

I'm no expert' date=' but putting the words magical physical as to describe something doesn't seem very plausible... sorta oxymoron

 

and the way i imagine time is that its like a tree. a central timeline is the trunk. this splits up into multiple roots which in turn split up as well. If one went back in time, you would basically go to a time and a new 'root' would 'grow'. The timeline you were in isn't accesable to you any more, but the people who don't time travel never notice the difference (except the time traveller wil be gone)[/quote']

 

Where is this time tree? How does it work, why would the universe organize itself to adapt to time alteration?

[Sayonara]

Also, why should it only branch in one 'direction'?

[Leroy]

Where is this time tree? How does it work, why would the universe organize itself to adapt to time alteration?

 

The time tree might be something we can't see directly (duh?) but i imagine it could be in higher dimensions or even 'outside' of our universe

 

and as far as adapting is concerned, it would do this to avoid temperal paradoxes like you being in the future and past at the same time

 

like meeting yourself in the past

[Bigger Ape]

Time, no matter which way you look at it, is simply a tool to measure the flow of energy through a given point. Time is derived (merely as an abstract) from energy. There is no such physical fabric as time.

[LucidDreamer]

I'm sitting at my computer right now but just hours earlier my nephew was sitting at this exact same spot. My girlfriend has sat here, as have many friends and relatives-maybe a couple of dozen people in all. Are we all meshed together into some kind of mutated bio blob? No. We are not because the moments that we sat here are separated by time. I ate pepperoni pizza earlier for dinner. By now some of that pepperoni has worked its way into my system and become part of my body. At some point that pepperoni was part of a pigs body. Are the atoms that make up those pepperonis somehow existing in both our bodies? No. The point that those atoms existed in the pig’s body and the point at which the atoms exist in mine are separated by time.

 

I can't see gravity, but I can see the effects of gravity by observing the planets circle the sun or an acorn fall from a tree. Time may not be a concrete object you can hold in your hand but it's something that exist, something that effects everything around us. I only have to look at my grandmother's face to know that time is a very real phenomenon.

 

The science that launches spacecraft, produces radio waves, and propels automobiles is built around equations that include time. We know that those equations are right, and that time does truly exist because that technology works. Take out time or gravity and classical physics collapses.

 

Questioning whether time exist is like asking how do I know I exist or how do I know that everyone else isn’t just a figment of my imagination. These are questions of philosophy, not science. Sure time, like all these words and ideas, is simply a construct of my nervous system and not the real thing. But time is as real as any other thing that exist within our limited perceptions and I suggest we don't disown it.

[Bigger Ape]

But time is as real as any other thing that exist within our limited perceptions and I suggest we don't disown it.

The fact that we percieve things does not make them real - what about colours? They are really the brains way of ordering different wavelengths of light (much similar to the brains way of ordering energetic events as occuring on a timeline). We could easily be be debating the reality of blue or red with one side holding to the view that we see them so they can't be an illussion; and the other holding the correct view that they are just wavelengths that our eyes deceive us about. The major difference between both sides is that one is looking at everyday perceptions, but the other is looking deeper at the mechanics of electromagnetic phenomena.

We are conditioned by culture and years of schooling, to the Newtonian methods involving absolutes and time dependent vectors as tools of analysis. However, there are other models of mechanics that do not require vectors like force and velocity (eg Hamiltonian mechanics), but are based on energy balances - energy being the only fundamental of nature from which other manmade units are derived. With such models, it is easy to see the artificial nature of time; it's just a mathematical tool like zero, infinity etc.

[YT2095]

But time is as real as any other thing that exist within our limited perceptions and I suggest we don't disown it.

I`ve no idea why the above quote was selected in particular in the above post, it`s not as if our instruments tell lies to us either, time is perfectly real as long as there is any change in the unviverse, there will be "Time"

[LucidDreamer]

I can see your point, but this is a science forum not a philosophy forum. Nothing that I see is real its only my minds recreation-a sort of mental hologram. I understand and agree with this, however in order to accomplish anything, things like color, velocity, force, and time need to be treated like real forces.

 

If I want to harvest a wheat field I need to take into account things like the above forces to construct a tractor. Other wise you will have a bunch of wise men sitting around sporting beards, wearing long flowing robes, talking about whether the wheat, time, or velocity really exist all the while starving to death.

[Sayonara]

...on the other hand, humans have created a society whereby it is not the sole and several responsibility of each man or woman to grow or gather their own food, which has allowed a portion of the population to sit around stroking their beards and give our species things to dream of, and better ways to construct tractors.

 

Do not make the mistake of trying to drive the wedge too far in between philosophy and science.

[Bigger Ape]

I can see your point, but this is a science forum not a philosophy forum

No that's wrong; Philosophy is the backbone of science because all science must be logical.

It is ok to use the concept of time in our everyday world in which it makes sense to have some form of calibrated chronology. When applied to the world of modern physics that concept loses meaning because we are reaching deeper to find the very definitions of the properties of our everyday world. To succeed in this we'll quite clearly have to provide extensions to our every day world set of mathematical tools or use them in such a way that it is plain to all that they are just a set of tools - the same old concepts will not work.

it’s not as if our instruments tell lies to us either

No? That’s not so, the Uncertainty Principle is handy in molecular physics and below, because our instruments and concepts tamper with the results.

 

If time is a physical reality as some speculate, then it would be possible to create energy by manipulating time (impossible except we bin conservation of energy). However, we create time each time we measure energy (there is no conservation of time). Energy is the only Universal fundamental.

[Guest jm5k]

I've long thought this, only now found other people talking about it. Time is real, but as a device we use to analyze energy moving from point to point as we see changes. It is an abtract term, used only because it's much easier to explain things.. because you can't without.

[YT2095]

the uncertainty principal has nothing to do with it, consider the idea that the instrument reading isn`t correct due to it, the fact that it gave A reading (Any reading) flawed or otherwise, indicates that Time exists, by virtue of the fact that something changed, the actual reading is irellevent, the only importance is that the hand on the clock DID move for example, if it took longer or shorter than a second to do it, makes no difference

[Guest duncanville1]

The time tree might be something we can't see directly (duh?) but i imagine it could be in higher dimensions or even 'outside' of our universe

 

and as far as adapting is concerned' date=' it would do this to avoid temperal paradoxes like you being in the future and past at the same time

 

like meeting yourself in the past[/quote']

Well I know this has been discussed before, I actually don’t recall the whole solution, but it was theorized that somehow paradoxes would be limited, because the time traveler would be in a altered timeline, i.e.; there could be no grandfather paradox because no matter how hard you tried to kill your grandfather before you were born, you would never succeed. It’s been a while since I have read any research on this; maybe someone else could shed more light on the subject.

[Bigger Ape]

You've said;

Time exists, by virtue of the fact that something changed

I think its easier to see any such change as a change in energy balance, that way we arent hampered by helpful mathematical tools in situations where they begin to get in the way as we drill below the everyday world into areas that are more fundamental. The things that we use in visualising the world we are used to can't work when it comes to describing the fundamental stuff that makes up the world we inhabit - for instance, we see colour but colour is not useful in describing the wavelength of an electron even though the electron has a frequency.

the uncertainty principal has nothing to do with it...

It does YT2095, you should check these links

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html ...or even better;

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ Heres a quote from Stanford (link above) concerning Heisenberg's thoughts

...As an example, he considered the measurement of the position of an electron by a microscope. The accuracy of such a measurement is limited by the wave length of the light illuminating the electron. Thus, it is possible, in principle, to make such a position measurement as accurate as one wishes, but only by using light of a very short wave length, e.g., γ-rays. But for γ-rays, the Compton effect cannot be ignored: the interaction of the electron and the illuminating light should then be considered as a collision of at least one photon with the electron...

[5614]

i think that time does exist, it might be man-made, or even only in your mind, but it is what we live by... therefore it is real, maybe only real inside out head, but it is real