The present time

[36grit]

The only way I can think of to describe the present time is this:

The instant position of your thought and body of awareness.

 

How does science describe the present time.

 

 

 

 

[md65536]

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

 

The present (or now) is the time that is associated with the events perceived directly and in the first time, not as a recollection (perceived more than once) or a speculation (predicted, hypothesis, uncertain). It is a period of time between the past and the future, and can vary in meaning from being an instant to a day or longer. In radiocarbon dating, the "present" is defined as AD 1950.

It is sometimes represented as a hyperplane in space-time, typically called "now", although modern physics demonstrates that such a hyperplane can not be defined uniquely for observers in relative motion. The present may also be viewed as a duration (see specious present).

 

 

Related is the notion of an instant: http://en.wikipedia..../Cauchy_surface

 

Another quote from above: http://en.wikipedia....s_.22present.22

 

Special Relativity's "present"

It follows from Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. When care is taken to operationalise "the present", it follows that the events that can be labeled as "simultaneous" with a given event, can not be in direct cause-effect relationship. Such collections of events are perceived differently by different observers. Instead, when focusing on "now" as the events perceived directly, not as a recollection or a speculation, for a given observer "now" takes the form of the observer's past light cone. The light cone of a given event is objectively defined as the collection of events in causal relationship to that event, but each event has a different associated light cone. One has to conclude that in relativistic models of physics there is no place for "the present" as an absolute element of reality. Einstein phrased this as: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion".

 

Personally, I disagree with Einstein's quote there.

If every event can be ordered in a sequence, with all causative events placed "before" and all effected events placed "after" (and any non-causally related event placed arbitrarily maybe), then the past and future relative to an event can be consistently defined (with many possible consistent choices for those arbitrarily placed events).

Then the present can be defined relative to any event. The act of observing or experiencing a moment of time can be called an event (or a set of events); the present would be a set of events simultaneous to that. -- In agreement with Einstein this set is not distinct, and the separation between past and future can be made arbitrarily... However, the only real significance of past and future involve causally related sequences of events, and causally related sequences of events have a distinct ordering.

 

If the present can be defined relative to any event (as in, any event happens in that event's present), then the present is different for everyone and for every observation.

Philosophically I would say that the present for a given person is the set of events simultaneous to the perception of being in or at any particular moment.

 

Edit: But I wouldn't try to define a true present in terms of human perception, because the brain probably mixes a lot of recent "past" into its perception of the present, and probably deals with events out-of-order by different parts of the brain, in order to function. Our perception of the present is probably quite fuzzy and technically inconsistent.

Edited October 15, 2011 by md65536

[Mystery111]

The only way I can think of to describe the present time is this:

The instant position of your thought and body of awareness.

 

How does science describe the present time.

 

 

 

 

 

There are two ways to view the present time. One is more accurate than the other. The dubious way to see the present time is in light of the pscyhological arrow of time. Because we have a disctinction of both a past and a future that somehow makes the present time somehow unique to human perception... however, there is really no such thing as a past and a future. Which leads us to the second and more correct way to view the present: in fact, it makes a definition of what time is itself! The idea is that all that may happen and will happen will happen within the present time frame. No measurements are ever conducted ''outside'' present time.

 

Even though the past and future do not exist (and this was recognized by Einstein when he formulated his General Theory of Relativity) it still can be rewarding to think that the present is a record of the past and the future is record of the present. Rewarding also because we deal with the past and future states in evolution equations, so while the past and future might not physically exist, it still yields predictable physics most of the time.

 

Let [math]t_1[/math] be the present time, [math]t_0[/math] as the past then

 

[math]t_1=t_1[/math]

 

[math]t_1 = t_0 + [t_1 - t_0][/math]

 

so if we let [math]D[/math] represent a time delay, then:

 

[math]t_1 = t_0 + D[/math]

 

The past plus the now is really the same as saying the past plus a time delay, so replace that with [math]t_0 + D[/math].

 

(added:) you could also say

 

[math]t_2 =t_1 + D[/math]

 

Where [math]t_2[/math] is the future time which is just the present time plus a time delay.

 

Time doesn't have a flow either. Time is not like a river. Time is not linear and there is no such thing as an arrow of time. The only arrow of time which holds any meaning is the psychological arrow of time.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Mystery111

[36grit]

So the present only exists in the mind and relative field of a conscience interpretor. But in a filed of consience interpreters there is an expansion, and therefore an arrow of time.

 

What the math seems to suggest is that all knowledge already exists, and that every possible event has already happened. There is a present state of knowledge. If you were in a coma for the last ten years you'd have a lot of knew things to deal with including a body that's ten years older.

 

an arrow like spectrum of time seems to exist between absolute zero degrees and the speed of light.

Would science agree with this last statement?

[michel123456]

The only way I can think of to describe the present time is this:

The instant position of your thought and body of awareness.

 

How does science describe the present time.

I doubt you will get a straightforward answer.

 

What the math seems to suggest is that all knowledge already exists, and that every possible event has already happened.

How do you come to such a conclusion ?

 

I see things this way:

1.You can look at an event in the past: if this event took place a year ago, this event must be on light-year away. Otherwise, you cannot observe it.

2. you can observe an event that happened 1 second in the past: this event must be one light-second away (300.000 km away). Otherwise, you cannot observe it.

3. you can observe an event that happened one nanosecond in the past: this event must be one light-nanosecond away from you.(30 cm away)

4. If you want to observe an event that happened zero second in the past, this event is must be next to you. Actually, at t=0, the event is inside you.

 

That is the present.

In this view, the present is not something fugace between past and future. The present is a long long you.

 

5. If you want to look to the future, it is kind of difficult, because you should look inside yourself.

 

I think this view is compatible with established scientific conviction.

Edited October 15, 2011 by michel123456

[owl]

Very interesting. One of my favorite subjects.

And SR has re-defined "IS."**

The future has not yet happened. The past has already happened. The present IS happening this instant as future becomes past. This instant is not a "very small slice of time" as some would have it.

What was Einstein thinking when he said, as above?:

 

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion".

md65536:

Personally, I disagree with Einstein's quote there.

 

Me too, but for different reasons.

And the above quote is contradicted by Einstein himself if Mystery111’s statement is correct:

Even though the past and future do not exist (and this was recognized by Einstein when he formulated his General Theory of Relativity)...

 

**Wikipedia on Eternalism (philosophy of time) (my bold):

Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real. Modern advocates often take inspiration from the way time is modeled as a dimension in the theory of relativity, giving time a similar ontology to that of space...

This would mean that time is just another dimension, that future events are "already there", and that there is no objective flow of time. It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block",[2] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.

 

I agree that space (and the objects in it) are 3-D and "time" elapses as things move through space. "Spacetime" reifies both space and time, creating a model of a 4-D "block universe" in which everything that has happened or will happen "is still happening" in some sense... related to the "light cone" model of every different "event" in every different location.

 

Also (Wiki, continued):

Eternalism takes its inspiration from physics, especially the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, in which the relativity of simultaneity is used to show that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment. According to Presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe.

 

How did the present become location specific? Via the 4-D spacetime model with light cones for each frame of reference having a different "now."

The Wiki piece continues:

Philosophers such as John Lucas argue that "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past"

I agree.

Edited October 15, 2011 by owl

[36grit]

How about:

The current presentation of entropy, momentum, position, and thought (for living organizms) as is relative to all things of similar attribute/s.

[DrRocket]

The only way I can think of to describe the present time is this:

The instant position of your thought and body of awareness.

 

How does science describe the present time.

 

 

 

 

 

This is more subtle that you might think.

 

Start by reading a book on special relativity. Rindler's An Introduction to Special Relativity is a good one. Pay attention to the "relativity of simultaneity". One observer's "now" need not agree with the "now" of an observer in relative motion.

 

If that is not enough, then look into general relativity and the notion of a Cauchy surface.

[Mystery111]

Very interesting. One of my favorite subjects.

And SR has re-defined "IS."**

The future has not yet happened. The past has already happened. The present IS happening this instant as future becomes past. This instant is not a "very small slice of time" as some would have it.

What was Einstein thinking when he said, as above?:

 

 

md65536:

 

 

Me too, but for different reasons.

And the above quote is contradicted by Einstein himself if Mystery111’s statement is correct:

 

 

**Wikipedia on Eternalism (philosophy of time) (my bold):

 

 

I agree that space (and the objects in it) are 3-D and "time" elapses as things move through space. "Spacetime" reifies both space and time, creating a model of a 4-D "block universe" in which everything that has happened or will happen "is still happening" in some sense... related to the "light cone" model of every different "event" in every different location.

 

Also (Wiki, continued):

 

 

How did the present become location specific? Via the 4-D spacetime model with light cones for each frame of reference having a different "now."

The Wiki piece continues:

 

I agree.

 

from your qoutes: '' According to Presentism this is impossible because there is only one present moment that is instantaneous and encompasses the entire universe.''

 

This is what I have came to understand time as. Also, I don't think my view of time contradicts Einstein's at all. I wasn't quite sure why you said this.

 

qouted "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past"

 

''Passage'' implies a directionality and flow. Since this is not a true physical state, it remains that a by-product of what we call the psychological arrow. This accounts for the subjective experience of the a directionality to time.

 

There is also something called the Time Problem in General Relativity and QM... I will find you the papers relevant - it has been argued that if one can solve this problem, it will pave a better understanding how to unify the General theory with the quantum theory.

 

In fact, I have found a real gem for you.... references to the lack of time as a river flowing from past to future, but as there are many papers here, the one I want you to read is

 

http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf

 

source

 

 

http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2008.1

 

Enjoy!

[md65536]

there is no such thing as an arrow of time. The only arrow of time which holds any meaning is the psychological arrow of time.

What about causality? Does it work in reverse identically to forward?

 

What about non-determinism? Certainly the past is determined; does that mean the future must be? Or is the future undetermined and so is the past (if we reverse time we get a different past)? Are you speaking from opinion/belief, or from the standpoint of accepted science?

 

What about entropy? It has a meaningful arrow.

Edited October 18, 2011 by md65536

[Mystery111]

What about causality? Does it work in reverse identically to forward?

 

What about non-determinism? Certainly the past is determined; does that mean the future must be? Or is the future undetermined and so is the past (if we reverse time we get a different past)? Are you speaking from opinion/belief, or from the standpoint of accepted science?

 

What about entropy? It has a meaningful arrow.

 

Entropy.... causality..... non-deterministic universes whhere the past is defined...

 

Can I concentrate first on the latter here. What is meant by a defined past?

 

As for the much-abused ''arrow of time'' and ''Entropy'' used as it's core arguement, I will provide you to a bit of reading material:

 

http://www.motionmou...t/download.html

 

"Time is a concept introduced specially to describe the flow of events around us; it does not itself flow, it describes flow. Time does not advance. Time is neither linear nor cyclic. The idea that time flows is as hindering to understanding nature as is the idea that mirrors Page 71 exchange right and left. The misleading use of the expression 'flow of time', propagated first by some flawed Ref. 36 Greek thinkers and then again by Newton, continues. Aristotle (384/3–322 bce), careful to think logically, pointed out its misconception, and many did so after him. Nevertheless, expressions such as 'time reversal', the 'irreversibility of time', and the much-abused 'time's arrow' are still common. Just read a popular science magazine chosen at random.

 

Interesting no?

 

Before personally I came across this material, I realized long before this that an arrow simply cannot exist. What is an arrow but an abstraction pointing from some point in the past to some occurring point in the future? It would be like drawing a dot on a peice of paper, then drawing a line from that point linearly towards another point, the point of the future cone. This is all really bad physics though, because there is no such thing as the center of the universe!!!! Well.... actually there is a center to the universe, so long as you are willing to make every point on the spacetime map the center of the universe, an infinite amount of points. The past in this sense, when an arrow of time is involved, actually points in every direction of space, not a single one pointing from the past extending into the future.

 

This is the first fundamental flaw of believing that an arrow exists. The second rolls from the first

 

Assuming that one cannot draw a line extended from some point in our past as an abstract arrow defining what we niavely call an arrow of time, there is also the problem with the fact we sense time flow as being part of an ordered set of casual events which makes sense to our understanding of why things happen in orderly fashions.... Well events are not orderly when we are concerned in relativity. In relativity, two observers can quite clearly come to contradict when events actually happen - take also the fact that we sense ''time flow'' and that is part of the ordered set of events which we have come to attribute to entropy in a series of causal physical events, time does not flow, we are being told by physics http://www.fqxi.org/..._contest__E.pdf . If time is not really a river which flows without recourse from past to future, then this places some serious limits on why we are even thinking along the lines of causal events in spacetime defining a directionality to time.

 

 

 

This is a very serious arguement. Since the stuff of ''flow'', ''past'' extending to ''future'' are all subjective phenomena, then the arrow of time must be by default also subjective.

 

Not to mention an arrow of time takes seriously a past state exists, along with a future state as well. We have already ascertained here in this thread general relativity (and those who take quantum mechanics seriously ''Einstein'') does not exist. If there is only the present frame in which things exist, then what we really have is an eternal present. The stuff of past and future begin to be unveiled as products of a recording mind, which makes sense of the present by cataloguing the past and expecting a future to occur. Niether of which the past and future however physically exist.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Mystery111

[michel123456]

The past in this sense, when an arrow of time is involved, actually points in every direction of space, not a single one pointing from the past extending into the future.

 

Correct.

 

 

This is a very serious arguement. Since the stuff of ''flow'', ''past'' extending to ''future'' are all subjective phenomena, then the arrow of time must be by default also subjective.

 

Replace the word "subjective" by the word "relative" and most members here will agree on the statement.

 

The stuff of past and future begin to be unveiled as products of a recording mind, which makes sense of the present by cataloguing the past and expecting a future to occur. Niether of which the past and future however physically exist.

 

Here all the discussion should focus on what "exist" means.

 

If you mean what "exists" is determined by what happens into the present, it will be your interpretation. Someone else could argue that all we can observe "exist" only in the past. And someone else could argue that everything in the past present & future exist. These will be based upon 3 different definitions of the word "exist", not about the nature of time.

 

---------------

 

My understanding of time is the following:

 

1. Time is not flowing, WE are "moving" in time.

2. each observator is the centre of its own universe, with its own present, past, future. There is no absolute present.

3. Displacement in time follows the same principle as displacement in space: diplacement means that you change position (looks like tautology), you exist at some coordinates and stop existing at another. IOW my own past is not occupied by my presence, I traveled from my past to my present, I changed coordinates in time.

4. I just deleted point 4 fearing entering deep speculation.

Edited October 18, 2011 by michel123456

[owl]

Mystery111:

Also, I don't think my view of time contradicts Einstein's at all. I wasn't quite sure why you said this.

 

I was contrasting the Einstein quote:

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion"

....

with your statement:

Even though the past and future do not exist (and this was recognized by Einstein when he formulated his General Theory of Relativity)

...

 

My point was that the latter recognition (that the past and future do not still/yet presently exist) seems to contradict the direct (“People like us...”) quote above.

Of course the future IS not yet present; and the past IS not still present.

To your links...

I agree with Barbour that time is simply duration. My definition, shared often in this forum: event duration of physical events.

 

Markopoulou states that:

Our faulty assumption is that space is real.

 

Is volume “real?” A line is one dimensional. A plane is two dimensional. Volume is three dimensional, whether applied to space or objects in space. When stuff moves through space we say that “time elapses” but this does not mean that time is "something” other than the duration of such events of physical movement.

 

If there were no clocks (or people) everything in the cosmos would still be in motion. We say that such movement "takes time," but we need not reify time, or "make something of it" because of the duration of events. Nor can "it" be "woven together with space" to create the "fabric of spacetime" as many of the critics in the ISASS contend.

Edited October 18, 2011 by owl

[md65536]

Nor can "it" be "woven together with space" to create the "fabric of spacetime" as many of the critics in the ISASS contend.

Actually, it can.

The result is a model with well-tested correspondence with observed reality.

 

 

 

Ugh, yawn. I guess the supply of troll food ran out in the other thread. Plenty of fresh blood here! Start suckin!

[Mystery111]

Replace the word "subjective" by the word "relative" and most members here will agree on the statement.

 

 

 

I disagree strongly.

 

Time's arrow is not relative. Time's arrow in the psychological arrow description (one of several arrows of time in physics) is an asymptotic phenomenon. The experiences of events are always within the present time frame. Duration of Events is when we record a series of events or ''happenings'' which we can catalogue through experience of when they happened (Or when order is illuminated by our sense of perception.) Time is relative however, but the idea of a linear ordered flow of time could never be a relative statement, because then you would need to tell me what time is moving relative to.

 

If you can answer this, I will send you 100 pounds. That is roughly 150 dollars.

 

Mystery111:

 

 

I was contrasting the Einstein quote:

....

with your statement:

...

 

 

There is no contradiction between me and Einstein. Einstein said it was an ''illusion'' because it does not really exist. What we experience (which is just a bunch of electrical signals interpretated by the nueral networks of our brains) is in contrast a gathering of information which ''recreates'' the world as we experience it. To experience the world, the brain required memory to make sense of why we can somehow move from one present frame to another. The illusion is that our brain recreates the world under the impression that the real description of ''now'' is one between a boundary which time would be a past and a future. The past and future are ''experiences'' only. Not physical artifacts of the world.

 

Of course the future IS not yet present; and the past IS not still present.

To your links...

I agree with Barbour that time is simply duration. My definition, shared often in this forum: event duration of physical events.

 

Markopoulou states that:

 

 

Is volume "real?" A line is one dimensional. A plane is two dimensional. Volume is three dimensional, whether applied to space or objects in space. When stuff moves through space we say that "time elapses" but this does not mean that time is "something" other than the duration of such events of physical movement.

 

If there were no clocks (or people) everything in the cosmos would still be in motion. We say that such movement "takes time," but we need not reify time, or "make something of it" because of the duration of events. Nor can "it" be "woven together with space" to create the "fabric of spacetime" as many of the critics in the ISASS contend.

 

You seem to not understand this very well.

 

It is not that the future is not yet present and the past is not still present, it is actually a matter that there is only the present time. Remove the idea that events are ordered, (invoked by the fabricated and misused arrow of time) and just accept that all events are equal and happening now.

 

And you cannot have a universe devoid of clocks and say there is still motion. That is in direct violation of relativity.

 

Ugh, yawn. I guess the supply of troll food ran out in the other thread. Plenty of fresh blood here! Start suckin!

 

I don't think he's a troll at all. But ill-informed and erreneously opinionated.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Mystery111

[IM Egdall]

I want to add my opinion here. I hope it helps. I think Einstein's comment that past, present, and future are an illusion comes from his consideration of simultaneous events. Say you are on a uniformly moving train car. A light is at the back of the car, and another at the front. Say you arrange it so both lights flash at the same time. So from your point-of-view on the train, the two light flashes are simultaneous.

 

Now what do people on the ground see as the train moves by them? Per Einstein, they do not see the two flashes occurring at the same time. In fact, they see the light at the back of the train car flash before the light at the front of the train flashes. This is the relativity of simultaneity -- and it comes directly from Einstein's light postulate (the speed of light is absolute).

 

On the train - For you on the train, let's define "now" as when the two lights flash. So to you, the past is before the two lights flashed. And the future is after the two lights flashed.

 

On the ground - What about the people on the ground? Let's define their "now" as midpoint between the times of the two flashes. So to them, the past is when the light at the back of the car flashed. And the future is when the light at the front of the car flashed.

 

So past, present, and future are relative. They are seen as different for observers in motion with respect to each other.

Edited October 19, 2011 by IM Egdall

[Mystery111]

light I have to add my opinion here. I hopr it helps. I think Eisntein's comment that past, present, and futere are an illusion comes from his consideration of simultaneous events. Say you are on a unifromly moving train car. A lioght is at the back of the car, and another at the front. Say you arrange it so you see both lights flash at the same time. So from your point-of-view on the train, the two light flashes are simultaneous.

 

Now what do people on the ground see as the train moves by them? Per Einstein, they do not see the two flashes occurring at the same time. In fact, they see the at the back of the train car flash before the flash at the front of the train. This is the relativity of simultaneity.

 

For you on the train, let's define "now" as when the two lights flash. So to you, the past is before the two lights flashed. And the future is after the two lights flashed.

 

But what about the people on the ground? Let's define their "now" as modpoint between the times of the two flashes. So to tehm, the past is when the light at the back of the car flashed. And the futer is when the light at the front of the car flashed.

 

So past, present, and future are relative. They are seen as different for you on the train than for those on the ground.

 

This is most likely right, Einstein was well aware of this fact when he made his statement.

 

I also made it clear that an arrow of time cannot exist because that would invoke a set of ordered events, but the elapsing of time allowed for events to happen between two observers can differ. But what is interesting to note, is that even though they may ''disagree'' when the events happened, the event in their frame of references where in fact happening still in an asymptotic frame of reference. This is most commonly known as local time experienced by the observer which would be frame-dependant. This means even though two events are oddly dilated and occurring at different times involving two observers, the events still occurred within a present time.

 

The time we all come to experience on, is the present time. This is the definition of an asymptotic time by the way, in physics.

 

But for time's histories, past and future and time present (experienced because of a recording mind) to be relative, it must assume that there exists a psychological arrow of time. As I said before, the psychological arrow is the only arrow which really holds any meaning at all. The reason to that is simple, but I never explained why before. The reason is because it holds meaning to the way we describe the universe, but does not describe the universe directly.

 

I have even speculated (and I may get a bad reputation for saying it, but hey ho) that time may not even really exist as part of the physical metric

[owl]

Actually, it can.

The result is a model with well-tested correspondence with observed reality.

 

"Actually?" So it's settled then and those ISASS conferences and papers on spacetime were in vain... probably just a bunch of crackpots anyway.

Cap 'n R admitted that spacetime is not ontologically real when he likened it to a "tie-died rabbit pelt", a non-entity, yes, just a "model" used conceptually in Minkowski's 4-D "spacetime", with no claim to existence as an entity.

 

Ugh, yawn. I guess the supply of troll food ran out in the other thread. Plenty of fresh blood here! Start suckin!

 

For the first time here I looked (in vain) for a place to report abuse.

 

Note to Admin: This is a formal complaint against md65536 for the above inflammatory remarks (that which "trolls" do)... a venomous vilification, a very hostile personal insult and attack.

 

My contributions here are sincere, with no malicious motives. Questioning and challenging mainstream science does not qualify as malicious.

[md65536]

"Actually?" So it's settled then and those ISASS conferences and papers on spacetime were in vain... probably just a bunch of crackpots anyway.

Cap 'n R admitted that spacetime is not ontologically real when he likened it to a "tie-died rabbit pelt", a non-entity, yes, just a "model" used conceptually in Minkowski's 4-D "spacetime", with no claim to existence as an entity.

Wrong thread.

[owl]

Mystery111,

You seem to not understand this very well.

 

You seem to not understand what I meant very well. I think you and I are in closer agreement than you think.

You say:

It is not that the future is not yet present and the past is not still present, it is actually a matter that there is only the present time. Remove the idea that events are ordered, (invoked by the fabricated and misused arrow of time) and just accept that all events are equal and happening now.

 

I agree that "there IS only the present." But It makes no sense (to me) to say, "It is not that the future is not yet present and the past is not still present." (my bold)

 

The Einstein quote said that ..."...the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." The distinction is that "future is not yet present and the past is not still present"... and in between them IS the ongoing present.

He did not, of course, believe that time is an entity, and with that we both agree. He once said that if all matter disappeared, time and space would also disappear. Of course, moving matter requires "elapsed time", without making it an entity. (I dispute that space would disappear. It would just become empty space.)

 

And you cannot have a universe devoid of clocks and say there is still motion. That is in direct violation of relativity.

 

Huh? Everything in the cosmos IS in motion, with our without clocks.

(Of course, in the general sense, everything moving IS a "clock.)

 

But ill-informed and erreneously opinionated.

 

How so? Or maybe this post clarifies what I meant.(?)

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

md65536 Calling "troll" tends to derail the thread, as we can see. It is a personal attack. Please report posts that you think are problematic rather than taking that approach.

owl this is a science thread. If you want to question some principle of science, do it in another thread; to do so here is hijacking. If you wish to advance an "alternative" hypothesis, it should be discussed in speculations. Your objections to relativity should be restricted to those threads you already have open on the topic.

[Mystery111]

 

 

 

How so? Or maybe this post clarifies what I meant.(?)

 

My comment was justified and I think the moderators agree.

 

You simply require a little tutoring in how to analyze these subjects. Believe it or not, but these subjects are more philosophy at heart but in root it lyes in the physical foundation of quantum theory.

[36grit]

It apears "now" is relative to everyones own position and individual consciousness, and that time is real but perhaps not in and of itself a physical phenominon. It seems more of an attribute of physical existance than anything else.

[michel123456]

I disagree strongly.

 

I suspect that we are not disagreeing that much.

 

(...) Time is relative however, but the idea of a linear ordered flow of time could never be a relative statement, (...)

 

IM Egdall gave a good example, where 2 flashes are simultanate for an observator, and sequenced for another. You can imagine a third observator for which the sequence of events is reversed. IOW the past for some observator can be the future for another.

 

But if one flash is the cause of the other flash, the 2 events cannot be reversed, unless some observator moves at speed faster than light, which is impossible by axiom.

In this sense, the sequence from any observator cannot be reversed.

Now, you are stating, if I understand correctly, that the sequence is simply an ordering happening in our brain and not a matter of physics.

That must be our disagreement.

I went through this phase, having for a while the conviction that time simply does not exist. But then, what is this "t" factor you encounter in all the mathematical laws of physics ?

You cannot simply erase it and continue explaining the Universe.

I have come to the conclusion that Time must correspond to something very physical. To me, Time is not an illusion.

 

(...)because then you would need to tell me what time is moving relative to.

I don't believe that "time is moving", I believe that WE are traveling into time. To me, time is a receptacle like space is. In fact a spacetime continuum.

 

But if time were moving, it would be relative to space. Better say space would be a tridimensional manifold translating along a fourth dimension we call time. But that would be wrong IMHO because time is relative.

Edited October 20, 2011 by michel123456

[Mystery111]

I suspect that we are not disagreeing that much.

 

 

 

IM Egdall gave a good example, where 2 flashes are simultanate for an observator, and sequenced for another. You can imagine a third observator for which the sequence of events is reversed. IOW the past for some observator can be the future for another.

 

But if one flash is the cause of the other flash, the 2 events cannot be reversed, unless some observator moves at speed faster than light, which is impossible by axiom.

In this sense, the sequence from any observator cannot be reversed.

Now, you are stating, if I understand correctly, that the sequence is simply an ordering happening in our brain and not a matter of physics.

That must be our disagreement.

I went through this phase, having for a while the conviction that time simply does not exist. But then, what is this "t" factor you encounter in all the mathematical laws of physics ?

You cannot simply erase it and continue explaining the Universe.

I have come to the conclusion that Time must correspond to something very physical. To me, Time is not an illusion.

 

 

I don't believe that "time is moving", I believe that WE are traveling into time. To me, time is a receptacle like space is. In fact a spacetime continuum.

 

But if time were moving, it would be relative to space. Better say space would be a tridimensional manifold translating along a fourth dimension we call time. But that would be wrong IMHO because time is relative.

 

This is the whole reason entirely why timelessness arises in physics. The Hamiltonian describing the universe has no time description. It happens because true time evolution in general relativity is a symmetry of the theory. Time is a special type diffeomorphism invariance which has constraints acting on the energy of the system. Moving clocks cease to exist and timelessness remains a problem for quantum mechanics.

 

But if time were moving, it would be relative to space.

 

Time is just the imaginary dimension of space. How can space move relative to itself? Relativity wouldn't allow that.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Mystery111