My theory about time

[moo]

This is my first post on this and i am not a qualified scientist but i came up with this theory about how time works which pretty much says that time doesn't exist.

so here it goes...

 

thins of it like a simple calculator, for the calculator there is no time, theories or explanations, there are just equations the calculator works out. Now, this calculator works these equations out at a certain speed can be seen as a part of time but if 'time' is seen as things happening in certain speeds and our feeling of time passing by is an illusion that is made by our body doing different things all the time such as breathing, cells reproducing, heart beating and so on. What i am trying to say is that if this theory is correct, 'time' doest exist and what we describe 'time' as is the speed and way in which things happen. for example, if the universe was completely empty, no stars no forces no waves nothing happening at all, it would be as if 'time' stopped because there would be nothing indicating 'time'. This theory also says that 'time travel' in theory would be possible but pointless and extremely hard because to go back in time you would need to reverse the actions of every single thing in existence which would mean you were never born and it wouldn't bring dead things back to life because they would be like a dead battery that can't be charged again. However, this theory also states that 'time travel' could also be applied to certain things and not the whole of existence because if time as a dimension does not exist, it does not affect everything together but rather only things that happen in certain speeds.

 

basically what i am getting at is that 'time' does not exist and that our way of sensing 'time' is merely the speed at which things happen in our body so 'time' is replaced by speed.

 

i hope this made scene and I doubt this is 100% correct but it is an interesting theory in my opinion and please feel free to message me or reply about it

[ACG52]

so 'time' is replaced by speed.

 

 

But speed is distance (or cycles) divided by time. So you can't get time out of the picture.

[Moontanman]

Time is all there is, nothing but time... it sounded good at the time... oh and btw, welcome to the forum, the time of your life i am sure...

Edited July 12, 2012 by Moontanman

[alpha2cen]

Time is an order. We can not change the order. But we can change the order span. It is ,so called, the theory of relativity.

[elfmotat]

Time is what we measure on clocks. Try to go any deeper and you're no longer doing science, you're doing unfalsifiable philosophy.

[alpha2cen]

Time is what we measure on clocks. Try to go any deeper and you're no longer doing science, you're doing unfalsifiable philosophy.

 

What is a clock?

[sumit]

Time is the continuous sequence of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.(wiki)

We perceive time through events we see. Hence as soon as the "light" from those events reaches our eyes, we see them happening and changing. Where there is light, there is time. And we know that gravity distorts time. More the gravity, time slows down and less gravity, time speeds up. This is why inside a black hole , it is assumed that there is no time since the gravity is immense. Thus the union of time and gravity gives rise to the dimension of time( according to me). Time is something we're confined under. We cannot imagine a world beyond time. We are incapable of perceiving the VOID.

interesting thought:

Of these three divisions of time [past, present, and future], then how can two, the past and the future, be, when the past no longer is and the future is not yet? As for the present, if it were always present and never moved on to become the past, it would not be time but eternity. If, therefore, the present time is time only by reason of the fact that it moves on to become the past, how can we say that even the present is, when the reason why it is that it is not to be? In other words, we cannot rightly say that time is, except by reason of its impending state of not being. – St. Augustine; The Confessions, Book XI

[Aethelwulf]

Time is the continuous sequence of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.(wiki)

We perceive time through events we see. Hence as soon as the "light" from those events reaches our eyes, we see them happening and changing. Where there is light, there is time. And we know that gravity distorts time. More the gravity, time slows down and less gravity, time speeds up. This is why inside a black hole , it is assumed that there is no time since the gravity is immense. Thus the union of time and gravity gives rise to the dimension of time( according to me). Time is something we're confined under. We cannot imagine a world beyond time. We are incapable of perceiving the VOID.

interesting thought:

Of these three divisions of time [past, present, and future], then how can two, the past and the future, be, when the past no longer is and the future is not yet? As for the present, if it were always present and never moved on to become the past, it would not be time but eternity. If, therefore, the present time is time only by reason of the fact that it moves on to become the past, how can we say that even the present is, when the reason why it is that it is not to be? In other words, we cannot rightly say that time is, except by reason of its impending state of not being. – St. Augustine; The Confessions, Book XI

 

There are too many ''no it's not'' to actually cover here... so just an overall ''No it's not'' will do.

 

Only the answers you have given can be out of a lack of understanding of modern theoretical and experimental physics.

 

 

 

 

There are too many ''no it's not'' to actually cover here... so just an overall ''No it's not'' will do.

 

Only the answers you have given can be out of a lack of understanding of modern theoretical and experimental physics.

 

 

 

 

As for st Augustine's quote... a bit outdated to be true. I did have a conversation with someone recently about this feeling of past becoming present and present becoming future. As I said to someone on another site

 

''

 

And yes, some might call the present moment a record of the past, or rather as you said, the period of time including a present moment. So one way to write this is by saying, the present [math]t_1[/math] is the past [math]t_0[/math] plus a time delay [math]\Delta t[/math] as

 

[math]t_1 = t_0 + \Delta t[/math]

 

abstractly this is ok. It makes sense to think of the present moment in this case as some present moment that once existed in the past and which then a small change in time led up to the present moment we recognize as ''now''. Just keep in mind, that the past [math]t_0[/math] can't have any physical relevance. I use past and future here as [math](t_0,t_1)[/math], notation may vary.

 

Using the above equation, one could argue the future [math]t_2[/math] is the present plus a change in time as

 

[math]t_2 = t_1 + \Delta t[/math]

 

But how does one make sense of the future in a physical sense? The future has not happened, and in fact, never happens. This is the paradox of our experience of time - all there is is the present moment nothing exists outside of it, nothing flows into the present moment or out of it.''

 

The easy solution to this, is to remember there is no flow to time. There is nothing which flows into or out of the present moment, and a present moment never is a ''true existing past.'' If it doesn't exist ''now'' it doesn't exist at all. Simple.

[michel123456]

There are too many ''no it's not'' to actually cover here... so just an overall ''No it's not'' will do.

 

Only the answers you have given can be out of a lack of understanding of modern theoretical and experimental physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for st Augustine's quote... a bit outdated to be true. I did have a conversation with someone recently about this feeling of past becoming present and present becoming future. As I said to someone on another site

 

''

 

And yes, some might call the present moment a record of the past, or rather as you said, the period of time including a present moment. So one way to write this is by saying, the present [math]t_1[/math] is the past [math]t_0[/math] plus a time delay [math]\Delta t[/math] as

 

[math]t_1 = t_0 + \Delta t[/math]

 

abstractly this is ok. It makes sense to think of the present moment in this case as some present moment that once existed in the past and which then a small change in time led up to the present moment we recognize as ''now''. Just keep in mind, that the past [math]t_0[/math] can't have any physical relevance. I use past and future here as [math](t_0,t_1)[/math], notation may vary.

 

Using the above equation, one could argue the future [math]t_2[/math] is the present plus a change in time as

 

[math]t_2 = t_1 + \Delta t[/math]

 

But how does one make sense of the future in a physical sense? The future has not happened, and in fact, never happens. This is the paradox of our experience of time - all there is is the present moment nothing exists outside of it, nothing flows into the present moment or out of it.''

 

The easy solution to this, is to remember there is no flow to time. There is nothing which flows into or out of the present moment, and a present moment never is a ''true existing past.'' If it doesn't exist ''now'' it doesn't exist at all. Simple.

 

Q. Do things exist?

A. Yes, things exist. (the universe exists)

 

Q. Do things exist in the past?

A. Yes, things around me exist in the past. The more away from me things are, the more in the past they are. Everything I can observe is in my past.

 

Q. Do things exist in the present?

A. Yes. Actually, only one "thing" exist in the present, and that "thing" is myself.

 

Q. Do things exist in the future?

A. tricky question. The future is not observable, so the answer should be "No". But the future is relative: we are in the future of Napoleon, and we exist, so the answer should be "yes".

 

What's the problem?

[Aethelwulf]

Q. Do things exist?

A. Yes, things exist. (the universe exists)

 

Q. Do things exist in the past?

A. Yes, things around me exist in the past. The more away from me things are, the more in the past they are. Everything I can observe is in my past.

 

Q. Do things exist in the present?

A. Yes. Actually, only one "thing" exist in the present, and that "thing" is myself.

 

Q. Do things exist in the future?

A. tricky question. The future is not observable, so the answer should be "No". But the future is relative: we are in the future of Napoleon, and we exist, so the answer should be "yes".

 

What's the problem?

 

 

 

Do things exist, of course they do.

 

Do things exist in the past, no they certainly do not. Refer back whether things exist to find your answer.

 

Do things exist in the present, they certainly do, in fact, only things can exist within the present.

 

Do things exist in the future, no they certainly do not, because we never experience the future. We only experience things in the present.

 

 

That's what is wrong.

[michel123456]

Do things exist, of course they do.

 

Do things exist in the past, no they certainly do not. Refer back whether things exist to find your answer.

 

Do things exist in the present, they certainly do, in fact, only things can exist within the present.

 

Do things exist in the future, no they certainly do not, because we never experience the future. We only experience things in the present.

 

 

That's what is wrong.

 

I think you are wrong.

I maintain my post.

[Aethelwulf]

I think you are wrong.

I maintain my post.

 

You justify your post with explanations, and then I will correct you with my own justifications.

 

Just a word of advice before you do... please understand the words you post, always happen in a present moment... nothing you have said is really existing in the past. Only your experience of it.

[juanrga]

Do things exist, of course they do.

 

Do things exist in the past, no they certainly do not. Refer back whether things exist to find your answer.

 

Do things exist in the present, they certainly do, in fact, only things can exist within the present.

 

Do things exist in the future, no they certainly do not, because we never experience the future. We only experience things in the present.

 

That's what is wrong.

 

Sure that mammoths did exist in the past and sure that a new gadget will exist the next year.

[Aethelwulf]

Sure that mammoths did exist in the past and sure that a new gadget will exist the next year.

 

But do they exist ''now''?

 

Surely even you, of all people are not going to contend they hold physical significance ''now''.

 

Some of you I understand have no training in any idea's of physics, but what I am telling you is a basic fact or even, principle of experience. So, do things in the past exist? No they do not.

 

The real question should be, do things in the past exist ''now''? Not, if they ''have'' existed... The past tense of the word is highly misused and abused by people here at this forum. They often come here proclaiming things like the past and future are real things, when in the context of physics, and even basic experience, they are not real and certainly don't exist now. You can even measure it in your own living room. Drop a ball from your hand. Tell me the state of that ball when it falls to floor. Does it have a past? No it doesn't.

 

The reason is simple, any ''past'' state is a true illusion. Nothing exists ''in the past''. You can say however that when a ball falls on a floor, it once rested in your hand in a previous ''present state''. But neither the past or the experience of it having a past is a true physical state.

 

It stands to reason.

 

Now, just because our ''minds'' remember a state does not mean that it exists, no less, than reading about a mammoth that exists in your book which read about ''now''. Nothing exists outside the present moment, it's a matter of fact.

 

The past, when the mammoth existed, did not happen in the past, it happened in the present. Think about it.

 

The past doesn't exist now, no more than the future will exist now. Only the now exists because it is the ''now'' which is what we call the ''present moment''.

[michel123456]

But do they exist ''now''?

 

Surely even you, of all people are not going to contend they hold physical significance ''now''.

 

Some of you I understand have no training in any idea's of physics, but what I am telling you is a basic fact or even, principle of experience. So, do things in the past exist? No they do not.

 

The real question should be, do things in the past exist ''now''? Not, if they ''have'' existed... The past tense of the word is highly misused and abused by people here at this forum. They often come here proclaiming things like the past and future are real things, when in the context of physics, and even basic experience, they are not real and certainly don't exist now. You can even measure it in your own living room. Drop a ball from your hand. Tell me the state of that ball when it falls to floor. Does it have a past? No it doesn't.

 

The reason is simple, any ''past'' state is a true illusion. Nothing exists ''in the past''. You can say however that when a ball falls on a floor, it once rested in your hand in a previous ''present state''. But neither the past or the experience of it having a past is a true physical state.

 

It stands to reason.

 

Now, just because our ''minds'' remember a state does not mean that it exists, no less, than reading about a mammoth that exists in your book which read about ''now''. Nothing exists outside the present moment, it's a matter of fact.

 

The past, when the mammoth existed, did not happen in the past, it happened in the present. Think about it.

 

The past doesn't exist now, no more than the future will exist now. Only the now exists because it is the ''now'' which is what we call the ''present moment''.

 

This below is a very rough spacetime diagram:

The past is the low half of the diagram, the future is the half upper part. The present is the bold horizontal line.

The observable universe (that is "everything") lies on the diagonals of the diagram.

The present bold line is empty, only the red dot, yourself, belongs to the present.

The future is empty, i.e. it is not observable. One could argue that the future does not "exist" since it is not observable.

The universe lies in the past: everything except yourself is in the past.

[Aethelwulf]

This below is a very rough spacetime diagram:

The past is the low half of the diagram, the future is the half upper part. The present is the bold horizontal line.

The observable universe (that is "everything") lies on the diagonals of the diagram.

The present bold line is empty, only the red dot, yourself, belongs to the present.

The future is empty, i.e. it is not observable. One could argue that the future does not "exist" since it is not observable.

The universe lies in the past: everything except yourself is in the past.

 

The past is observable in what sense, what... because we measure light now reaching us? Light doesn't even travel in time according to relativity. In fact, let us consider relativity and worldlines. Wordlines are actually static in relativity. What does this tell you about the nature of any past or future?

 

Einstein: ''for those who believe in physics know that the past and future are only stubbornly persistent illusions''

 

I mean, even outside of our most respected theorist and theory (Einstein and relativity), the past does not hold any significance physically. The past did happen. It happened in its own present moment or as you might call it, frame of time. But that is over now, there is nothing to it. Just because we sit here and now, in this present frame of existence does not give us any justification to ask the question

 

''Does the past exist''???

 

In fact, you can ask that question naively, but most of us actually get to the answer quite quickly with a little thought.

 

Going back to your light example, these are ''sending signals'' from the beginning of time. These signals are not to be mistaken to mean ''the past is existing now'' just because we can observe the past in this manner. You obviously don't have a clue of what you are talking about. The past is long gone .Light travelling almost untainted will continue these messaged for as long as it takes, but they don't exactly travel through time as we comfortably sit in the present moment. We are not stationary observers either. Everything moves along in the present time.

[Moontanman]

 

It stands to reason.

 

Now, just because our ''minds'' remember a state does not mean that it exists, no less, than reading about a mammoth that exists in your book which read about ''now''. Nothing exists outside the present moment, it's a matter of fact.

 

The past, when the mammoth existed, did not happen in the past, it happened in the present. Think about it.

 

The past doesn't exist now, no more than the future will exist now. Only the now exists because it is the ''now'' which is what we call the ''present moment''.

 

 

Can i infer from this that you do not think that the universe has some existence independent of the observer? I'm not sure I know how to express this but I am going to try.

 

Your assertion, to me at lease, seems to violate the general principles of relativity, from your point of view I can see a universal time, it's now everywhere, no past, no future, just now. Time obviously passes at different rates for different observes so how could there be a now any place but behind your eyes?

 

Your idea would also seem to wipe away the past as though it is immaterial, My thoughts on this is that it's more likely the entire past and present exist but the future is similar to an uncollapsed wave function, something we have not measured yet and our consciousnesses, our awareness is limited to the present, memories of the past and guesses about the future. I think it's possible that awareness is simply our brains measurement of the future as it happens and it's quite possible we exist at every point along that life line and always will...

[Aethelwulf]

The past is observable in what sense, what... because we measure light now reaching us? Light doesn't even travel in time according to relativity. In fact, let us consider relativity and worldlines. Wordlines are actually static in relativity. What does this tell you about the nature of any past or future?

 

Einstein: ''for those who believe in physics know that the past and future are only stubbornly persistent illusions''

 

I mean, even outside of our most respected theorist and theory (Einstein and relativity), the past does not hold any significance physically. The past did happen. It happened in its own present moment or as you might call it, frame of time. But that is over now, there is nothing to it. Just because we sit here and now, in this present frame of existence does not give us any justification to ask the question

 

''Does the past exist''???

 

In fact, you can ask that question naively, but most of us actually get to the answer quite quickly with a little thought.

 

Going back to your light example, these are ''sending signals'' from the beginning of time. These signals are not to be mistaken to mean ''the past is existing now'' just because we can observe the past in this manner. You obviously don't have a clue of what you are talking about. The past is long gone .Light travelling almost untainted will continue these messaged for as long as it takes, but they don't exactly travel through time as we comfortably sit in the present moment. We are not stationary observers either. Everything moves along in the present time.

 

Here is something for you to think about, if I really did exist in the past, then I would see multiple frame of my existence receding from me as I move my arm. But I don't. I see one arm, and it is always attached to me and it is always associated to the here and now... the past is nothing but a memory and a figment of my imagination, or as Einstein said, a complete illusion. Everything is fixed in the present moment. Even events which are time dilated, are still fixed in the present moment.

 

I just liked his post by accident lol

[Moontanman]

Consider this thought experiment.

 

A crystal rod is growing out of a solution, the rod grows only along one axis and it does so it gets longer but the rod it's self still exists away from the active crystallization site. I look at our awareness as the active site of crystallization the already crystallized rod is the past, the active site of "awareness" cannot travel back along the rod but the rod still exists... The future is still being crystallized and so has no real form other than potential...

 

edited for spelling

Edited July 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[Aethelwulf]

Can i infer from this that you do not think that the universe has some existence independent of the observer? I'm not sure I know how to express this but I am going to try.

 

Your assertion, to me at lease, seems to violate the general principles of relativity, from your point of view I can see a universal time, it's now everywhere, no past, no future, just now. Time obviously passes at different rates for different observes so how could there be a now any place but behind your eyes?

 

Your idea would also seem to wipe away the past as though it is immaterial, My thoughts on this is that it's more likely the entire past and present exist but the future is similar to an uncollapsed wave function, something we have not measured yet and our consciousnesses, our awareness is limited to the present, memories of the past and guesses about the future. I think it's possible that awareness is simply our brains measurement of the future as it happens and it's quite possible we exist at every point along that life line and always will...

 

No, to think a past exists which flows into the future is completely wrong, within the context of relativity and the context of physics as well.

 

Actually, relativity is on my side. Einstein is on my side. He was well aware that physics admitted that the past and future did not really exist, they were only stubborn illusions.

 

I am absolutely darned sure the universe has an existence outside of any proverbial observer, but that's not the point. The point is that the experience of a past is completely subjective. I can sit here and remember an event which happened two minutes ago, for instance. However, I remember that event in the present, there is no special meaning physically that this event is still happening, which is my entire point. The past is not happening now, it did happen. That does not mean it can be viewed as a real ''physical thing''. The only physical significance the world has are things which happen now.

 

Let me quote Lee Smolin, he is right

 

''All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment.''

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

[MigL]

Well the best authority that I've known on relativity, DrRocket ( apparently not on this forum anymore ), says relativity is not on your side as ALL events, past, present and future, exist in space-time. GR is of course, deterministic, so this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but you certainly cannot argue that just the 'present' foliation ( 3 dimensional ) is all that exists. As for your mention of Einstein, it was he who is most responsible for showing that only past events affect us due to the constant and finite speed of light, the present certainly cannot affect us at any measurable separation. Incidentally are fossil records, old books, etc. almost 'completely subjective' ?

 

I would argue that the past exists through causality. If the past is a figment of our collective imaginations, what causes events to happen in the present ? The causality argument can then also be extended to the future, which again needs to be taken with a grain of salt since certain aspects of QM allow for violation of causality.

Edited July 16, 2012 by MigL

[juanrga]

But do they exist ''now''?

 

What part of "did exist in the past" and "will exist the next year" you still confound with "now"?

[alpha2cen]

How do we recognize the present? The present does not really exist. Is this any resultants from energy, information and our brain ?

[michel123456]

Here is something for you to think about, if I really did exist in the past, then I would see multiple frame of my existence receding from me as I move my arm. But I don't. I see one arm, and it is always attached to me and it is always associated to the here and now... the past is nothing but a memory and a figment of my imagination, or as Einstein said, a complete illusion. Everything is fixed in the present moment. Even events which are time dilated, are still fixed in the present moment.

 

I just liked his post by accident lol

 

Excellent example.

You can put that on my diagram and understand why you cannot observe "multiple frame of my existence receding from me".

 

___________

Oops, I didn't realize Aethelwulf had been banned (on his own request??).

I'll miss you Aethelwulf.

Edited July 17, 2012 by michel123456

[sumit]

There are too many ''no it's not'' to actually cover here... so just an overall ''No it's not'' will do.

 

Only the answers you have given can be out of a lack of understanding of modern theoretical and experimental physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for st Augustine's quote... a bit outdated to be true. I did have a conversation with someone recently about this feeling of past becoming present and present becoming future. As I said to someone on another site

 

''

 

And yes, some might call the present moment a record of the past, or rather as you said, the period of time including a present moment. So one way to write this is by saying, the present [math]t_1[/math] is the past [math]t_0[/math] plus a time delay [math]\Delta t[/math] as

 

[math]t_1 = t_0 + \Delta t[/math]

 

abstractly this is ok. It makes sense to think of the present moment in this case as some present moment that once existed in the past and which then a small change in time led up to the present moment we recognize as ''now''. Just keep in mind, that the past [math]t_0[/math] can't have any physical relevance. I use past and future here as [math](t_0,t_1)[/math], notation may vary.

 

Using the above equation, one could argue the future [math]t_2[/math] is the present plus a change in time as

 

[math]t_2 = t_1 + \Delta t[/math]

 

But how does one make sense of the future in a physical sense? The future has not happened, and in fact, never happens. This is the paradox of our experience of time - all there is is the present moment nothing exists outside of it, nothing flows into the present moment or out of it.''

 

The easy solution to this, is to remember there is no flow to time. There is nothing which flows into or out of the present moment, and a present moment never is a ''true existing past.'' If it doesn't exist ''now'' it doesn't exist at all. Simple.

 

 

you're saying gravity,light and time are not related, cos that's what i wrote?. And as for st Augustine's quote , its just a thought to ponder about, nothing to support my claims. So just overall, man i feel so sorry for you. I'm not sure if you're aware of the entropy (arrow of time), as one goes forward in time the entropy of an isolated system will increase. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is a way of distinguishing the past from the future. So your theory saying nothing flows out of the present moment or out of it is completely wrong. Please read more about entropy before debating here cos i'm sure all you'll come up with are lame equations. Seriously those equations prove nothing. If you're in any way related to physics, please check your facts before replying. Again, i feel sorry for you

Edited July 18, 2012 by sumit