What is time? Does time even exist?

[elfmotat]

So it does have an impact then. Get enough of these small niggling interferences going in, gravity, other signals, vibrations from the air craft, air pressure, and god knows what else, and you have a complex dataset indeed. Lumping it all under "time dilation" seems to be a way of collecting all these errors, applying a tolerance of error, and then giving the impression that time itself is somehow changing as these clocks travel through space.

 

You don't seem to understand how a scientific theory works. Using Special and General Relativity, we can predict to high accuracy exactly how much time dilation should occur, and experiments agree wonderfully with our predictions. We're not simply looking at a clock that was moving, seeing that it read off a slightly different amount of time than a stationary clock and then calling the difference "time dilation." We're looking at a clock that was moving and seeing that the time it read off is the time difference predicted by relativity. Do you think this is just a happy coincidence?

 

You're going to have a tough time explaining away over a century of experimental data that confirms relativity's predictions. Time dilation is real, whether it sits well with you or not. You're trying to change the data to fit your theory instead of the reverse. You should learn to accept that nature doesn't always work the way you want it to.

[swansont]

I'm sure they call it time dilation effects. But that doesn't mean that time is slowing down and speeding up. When passing a photon though a super cooled materials it's speed can drop to as low as 38 miles an hour.

 

Source: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

 

Careful here. The speed of the light propagation dropped. The speed of the photons was not affected, and the article never claims that it was.

[Daniel Foreman]

Ok you might need to explain that one to me.

 

It is my understanding that light is created when an atom changes energy states and emits a photon. A photon is the smallest possible packet of light at a given wavelength. The wavelength is part of the electromagnetic spectrum to which radiation, radio waves and microwaves also belong too. When passed through a vacuum light travels at a constant speed of 2.997 x 10^8 m/s but when passing through a material medium, that is air, water, or a supercooled block of dense material then that waveform, to which the photon belongs can be slowed to as little as 38 MPH.

 

If my understanding of this is flawed I'd be grateful if you explained where it falls apart. Because right now to my mind, if light can be slowed down, and it belongs to the same spectrum as radio waves, then surely radiowaves travelling through a constantly varying density of material would experience some kind of slow down as well?

[swansont]

Ok you might need to explain that one to me.

 

It is my understanding that light is created when an atom changes energy states and emits a photon. A photon is the smallest possible packet of light at a given wavelength. The wavelength is part of the electromagnetic spectrum to which radiation, radio waves and microwaves also belong too. When passed through a vacuum light travels at a constant speed of 2.997 x 10^8 m/s but when passing through a material medium, that is air, water, or a supercooled block of dense material then that waveform, to which the photon belongs can be slowed to as little as 38 MPH.

 

If my understanding of this is flawed I'd be grateful if you explained where it falls apart. Because right now to my mind, if light can be slowed down, and it belongs to the same spectrum as radio waves, then surely radiowaves travelling through a constantly varying density of material would experience some kind of slow down as well?

 

That light didn't slow down because the material was dense; it was a vapor cloud of atoms. As an analogy, let's say you ran to the Ultimart and ran back and while running you went 20 mph. But you spent 10 minutes in the store. If you just took distance/time, you might conclude your speed was just 1 mph. But that's not how fast you ran.

 

Speed of photon travel is not the same as speed of light travel, because photons can be absorbed and emitted, and that process takes time.

[Daniel Foreman]

As far as I'm aware this was a real experiment that demonstrated that light can be significantly delayed with travelling through an material medium. Our atmosphere and the gasses within it are varying types of material medium are they not? So we have established that the electromagnetic spectrums can be delayed by the materials it meets along the way.

[elfmotat]

As far as I'm aware this was a real experiment that demonstrated that light can be significantly delayed with travelling through an material medium. Our atmosphere and the gasses within it are varying types of material medium are they not? So we have established that the electromagnetic spectrums can be delayed by the materials it meets along the way.

 

Did you read a word that swansont said?

[swansont]

"A medium slows/deflects all light, therefore all light is slowed/deflected by having a medium" is a fairly basic logical failure. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted.

[Daniel Foreman]

Please elaborate.

[swansont]

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php

 

'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan

[michel123456]

I move through space on a daily basis, I work with 3 Dimensional representations of space via computer programming on a near daily basis. So no, I have no problems with space. Why do you ask?

Yes that's what I thought. Space looks so familiar....

I will open a new thread on this so that this thread doesn't go out of tracks.

 

(Sorry for the late response.)

 

[seriously disabled]

I will quickly address my ideas on time. I think that time the measurement and actual time within the universe are two things that people confuse. Time the measurement is a man-made invention, it is very useful when predicting events and breaking down sequences of events. But time within the universe no more comes in seconds and minutes then it does miles and fluid ounces.

 

Time the measurement can be reversed and manipulated at will. With it we can take “snapshots” of the universe and attach it to individual units (milliseconds, seconds, minutes etc) and interpolate the data from one frame to another. This is an extremely useful tool when it comes to analysing everything around is. It helps define beginnings, middles and ends within a limited framework.

 

Because people mix up the idea of time the measurement and time within the universe we can create all sorts of wonderful fictions like Back to the Future, Continuum, Star Trek, and other famous time travelling TV shows. As a writer myself I understand the appeal of assuming time the measurement and time within the universe are the same thing.

But over the years I’ve considered what time is and I’ve come to a single conclusion.

 

Time doesn't exist in the way we are trained to think about it. Instead time boils down to two things.

 

Space and Matter.

 

In order to observe time, we must observe matter. In order to observe matter we must have a spatial framework. Therefore I conclude that what we perceive as “time” is simply “the motion of matter”. Therefore time, and matter are indeed one and the same. If all interactions between matter ceased and all expansion within the universe stopped then for all intents and purposes there would be no time. But as matter moves throughout the universe in its ever moving flow we get change, and it is this change, or interaction of matter that we perceive as time.

 

For what is time, if not change?

 

Within this model backwards time travel isn't possible under the current rules of the universe. In order to reverse time, you must reverse every direction and interaction of every piece of matter within the universe. Even a slight change in this will create an “imperfect recreation of previous states of matter” and as we all know, with any process there is always a margin of error. If we did manage to do this I highly suspect we’d have a “corrupted” form of the past. And I don’t mean silly things like, if we reversed time the Nazi’s would have won, or a president or two wouldn't get into power. I'm talking something far more catastrophic, such as every single cell in every single living creature becoming cancerous and damaged. Even rocks themselves becoming corrupted at the molecular level.

 

So if time is simply the motion of matter within a spatial frame work, then time itself is no more than an analytic too created by man, useful for prediction and data gathering but no more than that. Thus time doesn't exist, only motion does.

 

And this is exactly what Louis Savain says in "nasty little truth about spacetime physics".

 

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

 

Time simply does not exist and neither does space. They are completely human constructions with no physical basis in nature. All that really exists in nature is the interaction between fundamental particles.

[imatfaal]

Please stop posting the ranting of Louis Savain as accepted, credible, or documented science. There is a huge amount of good science out there on the internet via blogs, news-sources, free articles at journals, university websites, recorded lectures etc...However - Louis Savain is a dangerous and compelling crackpot.

[michel123456]

And this is exactly what Louis Savain says in "nasty little truth about spacetime physics".

 

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

 

Time simply does not exist and neither does space. They are completely human constructions with no physical basis in nature. All that really exists in nature is the interaction between fundamental particles.

I disagree with Savain.

quoted from the link:

 

 

the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt

is incorrect

the correct is Δ = dt/dx where Δ is the inverse of velocity expressed in second/meter. It is the amount of meter (the distance) you need to "travel" one second in time.

Edited February 14, 2013 by michel123456

[Daniel Foreman]

I can not deny that space exists, I move in it on a daily basis. Our ancestors spent a lot of their evolution developing senses that can detect the tiger jumping out of the forest at you quickly enough to get away. Space is real and it's here to stay... well until it all implodes anyway

But my point is that ONLY space has to exist, time doesn't. If you have space and a freedom to move within that space at will, then why do you need time at all? Why have we invented this "rail system" that can drag you forward and backward? A rail system based on a single observation, we move forward! Without ever observing going backward.

 

People seem to say spacetime as space now, so why does time have to be added at all, why isn't there just space?

As far as I can tell time is a mechanism for dealing with "multiple spaces" all at the same time. You take a snap shot of events at time frame A, you take another snap shot at time frame B, and a final snapshot of time frame C, then you compare the three together and look for patterns. It's a fine tool, but it doesn't make time itself a real force or presence in the universe, all we are really doing is taking multiple samples for the purposes of comparison.

 

P.S.

 

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php

 

If that was supposed to prove something other than that people play with words (like time) and then chose to accept them as truth because they feel like it, then well done. I think you made my point for me

Edited February 14, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[beefpatty]

 

As far as I can tell time is a mechanism for dealing with "multiple spaces" all at the same time. You take a snap shot of events at time frame A, you take another snap shot at time frame B, and a final snapshot of time frame C, then you compare the three together and look for patterns. It's a fine tool, but it doesn't make time itself a real force or presence in the universe, all we are really doing is taking multiple samples for the purposes of comparison.

 

 

 

Without time the only separation between events is spatial. By talking about snap shots in different frames you are invoking a time dimension.

[Xerxes]

 

Edited February 14, 2013 by Xerxes

[juanrga]

I will quickly address my ideas on time. I think that time the measurement and actual time within the universe are two things that people confuse. Time the measurement is a man-made invention, it is very useful when predicting events and breaking down sequences of events. But time within the universe no more comes in seconds and minutes then it does miles and fluid ounces.

 

Time the measurement can be reversed and manipulated at will. With it we can take “snapshots” of the universe and attach it to individual units (milliseconds, seconds, minutes etc) and interpolate the data from one frame to another. This is an extremely useful tool when it comes to analysing everything around is. It helps define beginnings, middles and ends within a limited framework.

 

Because people mix up the idea of time the measurement and time within the universe we can create all sorts of wonderful fictions like Back to the Future, Continuum, Star Trek, and other famous time travelling TV shows. As a writer myself I understand the appeal of assuming time the measurement and time within the universe are the same thing.

But over the years I’ve considered what time is and I’ve come to a single conclusion.

 

Time doesn't exist in the way we are trained to think about it. Instead time boils down to two things.

 

Space and Matter.

 

In order to observe time, we must observe matter. In order to observe matter we must have a spatial framework. Therefore I conclude that what we perceive as “time” is simply “the motion of matter”. Therefore time, and matter are indeed one and the same. If all interactions between matter ceased and all expansion within the universe stopped then for all intents and purposes there would be no time. But as matter moves throughout the universe in its ever moving flow we get change, and it is this change, or interaction of matter that we perceive as time.

 

For what is time, if not change?

 

Within this model backwards time travel isn't possible under the current rules of the universe. In order to reverse time, you must reverse every direction and interaction of every piece of matter within the universe. Even a slight change in this will create an “imperfect recreation of previous states of matter” and as we all know, with any process there is always a margin of error. If we did manage to do this I highly suspect we’d have a “corrupted” form of the past. And I don’t mean silly things like, if we reversed time the Nazi’s would have won, or a president or two wouldn't get into power. I'm talking something far more catastrophic, such as every single cell in every single living creature becoming cancerous and damaged. Even rocks themselves becoming corrupted at the molecular level.

 

So if time is simply the motion of matter within a spatial frame work, then time itself is no more than an analytic too created by man, useful for prediction and data gathering but no more than that. Thus time doesn't exist, only motion does.

 

Already Newton differentiated both concepts of time:

 

 

Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time...

 

Real or absolute time (often denoted by [math]\tau[/math] in the literature although I prefer [math]t[/math]) is the evolution parameter that synchronizes particle correlations. Relative or apparent time (often denoted by [math]t[/math] in the literature although I prefer [math]x^0[/math]) is obtained from reading a clock.

 

Usual notation in relativistic dynamics: [math]t = t(\tau)[/math]

 

But I dislike that notation and prefer my own notation which reads: [math]x^0 = x^0(t)[/math]. I.e. I denote by [math]t[/math] what they denote by [math]\tau[/math]. I prefer to use [math]\tau[/math] for proper time... use the notation that you prefer.

 

An alternative naming for the relative concept of time is operational time, because it is defined in terms of an operational procedure. Einstein always confounded both concepts of time, but modern physics does not confound them any more thanks to the recent works of Stueckelberg, Feynman, Schwinger, Horwitz, Piron, and others:

 

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

 

In that link absolute time is named "invariant evolution parameter" whereas relative time is named "coordinate time". Notice that it is [math]x^0[/math] which can be reversed (e.g. Stuckelberg/Feynman interpretation of antiparticles as particle travelling backward in 'time'), but real time cannot be inverted ("arrow of time"). This is why you cannot travel backward in real time [math]t[/math] and change the history of universe doing that Nazi’s will won neither you can turn every single cell in every single living creature

in cancerous and damaged.

 

Time cannot be confused with matter (matter is a physical system with properties such as energy and momentum defined at a given instant in time). If all interactions between matter ceased and all expansion within the universe stopped then time, real time, will continue to flow whereas it is [math]x^0[/math], apparent time, which will be stopped, somehow as stooping a clock with your hands does not mean that you have stopped the flow of time.

Edited February 16, 2013 by juanrga

[seriously disabled]

Time does not even exist in nature and there is no shred of proof that it does. Time is a completely human invention so it cannot exist in nature.

 

The same can be said for numbers. Numbers are human inventions too so by definition they do not (and cannot) exist in nature.

 

Everything in nature (including humans and animals) is made out of molecules and atoms so you can see that is quite obvious that time, numbers and infinity do not and cannot really exist.

Edited July 24, 2013 by seriously disabled

[swansont]

Time does not even exist in nature and there is no shred of proof that it does. Time is a completely human invention so it cannot exist in nature.

 

 

Then why doesn't everything happen at once?

[Delbert]

I think that the consequence of Einstein is that time - like speed - is relative. Like, I understand there's no such thing as absolute speed, whereby I cannot say at what speed I'm moving, only what speed I'm moving relative to something else. Presumably the conclusion is that 'speed' as a property or factor of the universe as a whole doesn't exist.

 

It seems to me that time has a similar property. Inasmuch as if I was approaching an event horizon of a black hole (think I've mentioned this previously), and should I look back at the universe I'd come from, I'd see it running fast - possibly very fast. Possibly as I got within touching distance of the event horizon (ignoring the gravitation tidal effects etc), and still looking back at the universe I was leaving, I would see it running forward in time possibly to its end and death of the universe.

 

So, presumably absolute time, like speed, doesn't exist.

 

The whole universe is just an illusion? But that's off topic.

[gabrelov]

If both time and 3 dimensions of space exist then time only holds those within fabric of space time, those outside it is no longer governed by time. Think of these, matter exists on the fabric of space time thus those not considered as matter is not affected by it.

 

Theory explains that time does not exist inside blackhole which is one example that time only governs those within the fabric of spacetime.

 

If you don't mind putting me some of those not affected by time are non existant such as "ghost", sorry, the only example i can give you. So judging by it, they do not age and they can travel at any moment since they are non existant and not subject to any law we know today. Spooky to think but science cannot disprove ghost just by existing laws because other laws may also exist on other universe or dimensions that is only waiting to be discovered.

 

Maybe one day we can prove it and we can finally see through those non existent and those outside the laws of physics.

Edited July 28, 2013 by gabdecena

[hyperion1is]

After reading the posts of this topic I try to distinguish between time and time.

Which of the following is true?: Note: So I don't open another topic (no need) because I think I can comment on which of the following:

I.1 Spacetime is a Cartesian system in which All that can exist exists in this spacetime?

I.2 Spacetime is Cartesian system with entities outside of it? Formally the spacetime being a mathematical set of equations which can constitute as a Sandbox in which you can perform some work, do some experiments? By who, if We were to be/live in Spacetime and not outside of it?

 

II.1 Spacetime treats time as a dimension without another time? In this case Spacetime can be considered static, from an objective point of view.

II. 2 Spacetime treats time as a dimension which recognizes another (discrete) time and in order to compensate is a process to add time to time (using the same time probably)?

 

Note: Spacetime: dimensions of/for distribution of matter.

One of the above is true or none of the above is true.

[saevitas]

I think that we only have the concept of time because we have memories. To us, there is a past, which is what our memories describe, there is present, what we're living right now, and there is future, what we haven't lived yet. If we didn't have memories, would these concepts make any sense to us? There would only be the now, nothing else.I know othing about what time is, but I think it is really, really complicated.

[gabrelov]

After reading the posts of this topic I try to distinguish between time and time.

Which of the following is true?: Note: So I don't open another topic (no need) because I think I can comment on which of the following:

I.1 Spacetime is a Cartesian system in which All that can exist exists in this spacetime?

I.2 Spacetime is Cartesian system with entities outside of it? Formally the spacetime being a mathematical set of equations which can constitute as a Sandbox in which you can perform some work, do some experiments? By who, if We were to be/live in Spacetime and not outside of it?

 

II.1 Spacetime treats time as a dimension without another time? In this case Spacetime can be considered static, from an objective point of view.

II. 2 Spacetime treats time as a dimension which recognizes another (discrete) time and in order to compensate is a process to add time to time (using the same time probably)?

 

Note: Spacetime: dimensions of/for distribution of matter.

One of the above is true or none of the above is true.

 

That is really hard considering we call time as time and it is integrated to 3 dimensional space thus its space time. But what we are really unsure of is that is there another time except for what we call time and what do we call it? As accordance to some theory we have time because we described and observed it but what if we don't have time, how do we measure things?

 

For me if you look at it time, it just a tool of measurement of how things change and by the law of conservation of energy, energy never disipitates but transforms in another form, so energy is timeless or doesnt have beginning nor end. Thus the change in energy form is what we measure. The same applies to us, we measure change using time, thus if there is nothing to measure we don't need time.

 

There is something happening and is relative to something thus we measure it by time but if a particle does not move change or do something we have nothing to measure from it and therefore it is not observed. In the universe we can only measure those observable things and beyond observable universe nothing possibly measuring of.

 

This way calculus was born, we want to determine the rate of change and so other laws was formed relative to time.

 

My question here is that not the existence of time but rather is it really possible to remove time or can we really stop time and what are its consequences?

[hyperion1is]

@ gabrelov

Sorry, I missed your post. Your post is interesting, I still didn't understood which applies (from my assertions), but how I see it, we all have a problem with time