What is time? Does time even exist?

[Daniel Foreman]

It's not a desire, it's a perception. I 100% understand why time exists as a tool, it's a damned useful one. I use it daily when calculating CPU cycles, screen refresh rates, how to interpolate the path of an object between two points. I don't particularly want time not to exist, if someone really does prove it outside a mathematical equation I'll be ecstatic about it! It would be another facet of the universe we can finally begin to understand properly. But, as I read, and talk to people, one theme repeatedly re-appears, that they all treat time as a foregone proven conclusion that is as real to them as the space they walk in. When I watch lectures on physics, and videos on how black holes would bend light, and play around with time itself as if it were some kind of rubber sheet. I get the ever distressing sense that the vast majority of people simply accept that time exists and don't really question what it is they are actually accepting.

 

So, I challenged myself, and asked. What if time doesn't exist? What if time can be explained by something so common, so every day that hardly anyone pays any attention to it? Over the years this idea has evolved, and as if evolved in my mind, be it right or wrong, my perception on the subject has shifted.

 

Will you see me using a stop-watch to compare the relative speed of two runners over a fixed distance? You sure will!

 

Will you see me treating things like distance, time, and mathematics as part of the actual universe? No!

 

Why? Because I think it's incredibly important not to merge them both into the same thing. Once you do the boundary between thought and experience potentially blurs, and people start treating one like the other.

Some more physics perspective on the subject

 

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2013/09/its-about-time.html

 

What a conceited blog post. First the author says there is no question that time exists. Then he goes on to say the only argument lay in what times nature is.

 

I mean for pity's sake, how can you produce an experiment that proves time if you don't even know what you're trying to prove?

 

Worse still the author basically finishes by saying the subject is boring him to sleep. I mean for pittys sake, why the hell make a blog post then?

 

It makes me wonder if swan even read it.

[Spyman]

Worse still the author basically finishes by saying the subject is boring him to sleep. I mean for pittys sake, why the hell make a blog post then?

The author calls himself ZapperZ, so when he signed with his initials he obviously didn't say that he was bored to sleep. Edited September 9, 2013 by Spyman

[Daniel Foreman]

I spend most of my life going through technical blogs it seems. It isn't common practice to sign posts made to a blog system.

 

No, in the context of "So really, enough of this nonsense on whether time exists or not, or if it is real or not." then Zz can easily be interpreted in the way I have. Especially when blog posts place a large Posted by ZapperZ at 8:03 AM message after every post, which surely the guy must have noticed.

 

So no, this is obvious at all.

[swansont]

I spend most of my life going through technical blogs it seems. It isn't common practice to sign posts made to a blog system.

 

No, in the context of "So really, enough of this nonsense on whether time exists or not, or if it is real or not." then Zz can easily be interpreted in the way I have. Especially when blog posts place a large Posted by ZapperZ at 8:03 AM message after every post, which surely the guy must have noticed.

The "Posted by ZapperZ at 8:03 AM" message is done by the software.

 

So no, this is obvious at all.

Yeah, it's not like you could look at the blog and see that it's at the end of every frikkin' post. Oh, wait…

[michel123456]

After all this discussion, has anyone of us changed his mind?

Or was this a waste of ...time?

[Daniel Foreman]

I've had a few private messages agreeing with me. So yes, but I never started this thread expecting to reach a consensus on the matter. Until there is definitive proof one way or another (which there can never be if time doesn't exist, because you can not prove that something doesn't exist) this discussion will remain unresolved. That's the problem with discussing anything without verifiable, testable evidence.

[Kramer]

 

Mr Foreman. I am a layman that find debates in science very attractive to lose “time” and to forget for while dark predictions of life.
With high interest I followed your very argumentative debate with Swansont and others about nature of time. I had. in speculation forum, a debate about time with him and continue to remain uncertain about subject.
I had the idea that space and “time” are form of existence of mater which is always in movement.. Without mater space and “time” are meaningless. I thought that space hasn’t limits in whatever 3 directions, and “time” is eterne. Mater together with space and “time” have not a beginning , have not an end. But different from space, which perceived by human senses, the time cannot perceived by human senses.
That means that “flow of time “ is a human’s illusion that has it beginning when our primates were divided by animals. The human brain acquired, via evolution, the ability to record what happens in its daily activity and to recall it further when needs them. So he gain the ability to restore in mind what he has perceived in the past, as useful knowledge for his survive. Even animals, in a very low level, have record of their past activity: A dog has recorded where he has hidden the bone, and recall it when he is hungry.
But the “flow of time” as an illusion, humans have acquired by the cyclic phenomena of nature: Day and night are the most evident repetitive phenomena, “movement” of sun in sky may divided in smaller portion of sky and use it as measure of “time”; morning, noon, afternoon, evening. And “after” comes the night. For smaller portion of time was used goad : Wake up lazy, the sun is risen two goad! used in some remote villages.

Seasons and a full circle of them (year), are used as bigger measure of “time”.
So : it is the “time” an illusion? or the “flow of time”?
But your ideas for B.B. in your debate were a cold dush.

[TrappedLight]

Time is what's measured by clocks as far as physics is concerned. Questions like "is time real or a manmade concept" are untestable philosophical questions. There's no way to test which is correct.

 

 

Your statement isn't without a sense of irony since time is not even an observable. Therefore, time itself is untestable.

 

 

It may turn out there is no such thing as time, only change. In fact, Julian Barbour has done a significant amount of work on this. Especially concepts like the wheeler de witt equation which dictates we live in a timeless universe.

[Mozart]

Daniel Foreman, I congratulate you for making that true observation. I understand you perfectly well. it isn't easy, such phenomenons aren't easy to tender a comprehensible backup explanation. For those of you trying to disprove his idea by using science, you are wrong. This has a hint on Einstein's Relativity idea. He is saying that time does not exist. there are only moments. time has it's origin from motion, from the fact that it takes 365.25 days for earth to revolve round the sun. time has no origin. time is manmade. assume that time does not exist, but moments do. time is just there for measurements. (to measure constant motion -of the earth. ) this remains a fact. so, disproving this with mere scientific understanding means you've not understood this point. thank you op

Daniel Foreman, I congratulate you for making that true observation. I understand you perfectly well. it isn't easy, such phenomenons aren't easy to tender a comprehensible backup explanation. For those of you trying to disprove his idea by using science, you are wrong. This has a hint on Einstein's Relativity idea. He is saying that time does not exist. there are only moments. time has it's origin from motion, from the fact that it takes 365.25 days for earth to revolve round the sun. time has no origin. time is manmade. assume that time does not exist, but moments do. time is just there for measurements. (to measure constant motion -of the earth. ) this remains a fact. so, disproving this with mere scientific understanding means you've not understood this point. thank you op

[swansont]

Daniel Foreman, I congratulate you for making that true observation. I understand you perfectly well. it isn't easy, such phenomenons aren't easy to tender a comprehensible backup explanation. For those of you trying to disprove his idea by using science, you are wrong. This has a hint on Einstein's Relativity idea. He is saying that time does not exist. there are only moments. time has it's origin from motion, from the fact that it takes 365.25 days for earth to revolve round the sun. time has no origin. time is manmade. assume that time does not exist, but moments do. time is just there for measurements. (to measure constant motion -of the earth. ) this remains a fact. so, disproving this with mere scientific understanding means you've not understood this point. thank you op

 

 

Seriously? Einstein, via relativity, was arguing that time does not exist? For someone doing so, mentions "time" an awful lot in his paper. For example,

 

 

"If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. " is not an argument that time doesn't exist. (that's from page 2, under the definition of Simultaneity. Simultaneity, of course, being a concept intimately tied in with time.

[Daniel Foreman]

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - Albert Einstein

I may be taking this quote out of context, however doesn't this summarise what I've been saying? Gravity is a function of matter, and time is a function of matter. Now most people think of time as past, present future. So personally I would substitute the word time for motion because motion doesn't carry this baggage.

 

Having said that I disagree with his statement about space not having a separate existence from matter. The fact that Vacuum environments exist, which are devoid of matter tells me that space is not dependant upon the presence of matter. Even at the subatomic level space separates atoms, quarks, etc.

 

As for those who devalue the idea of philosophy in scientific methodology I refer you to the following quote.

 

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe , a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty...We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." - Albert Einstein

 

Edited September 19, 2013 by Daniel Foreman

[swansont]

The fact that Vacuum environments exist, which are devoid of matter tells me that space is not dependant upon the presence of matter. Even at the subatomic level space separates atoms, quarks, etc.

 

 

No, not as such. The vacuum is never empty, there are alway virtual particles popping in and out of existence. The Casimir force is a real effect.

[Daniel Foreman]

As I understand the Casimir effect, two conducting parallel uncharged plates attract each other in a vacuum.

On this I make the following suggestions.

1) First of all, by introducing those plates we've introduced contamination to a vacuum.

2) Secondly the plates are very close to together, because the effect drops off at range.

3) If gravity is a natural function of matter, they why wouldn't electromagnetic be a natural function as well, what about the nuclear forces as well?

The theory appears to go into some complexities about virtual photons, and say that light pressure is the reason for the attractions and that this is the evidence that proves a vacuum is never empty of matter.

To which I point out the following very obvious observations I've made.

1) Matter "clumps" together. This is a fact, due to the forces that influence matter ( and if we take Einstein's premise that gravity isn't separate from matter as true ) we get different levels of clumping on all scales. Quarks, gluons, photons and electrons, groups of atoms clump, cells clump, dirt clumps, planets clump, stars clump, galaxies clump, etc etc.

So given that we see two large peices of metal being drawn to each other, can we really be surprised?

Also has this experiment been done in completely shielded environments? They specify that it must be "uncharged, conductive plates" there's a heck of a lot of radio wave energy on earth, given the surface area of the plates I don't see it as impossible that they might be picking up a charge from radiowaves and thus producing a weak magnetic pull on each other.

[StringJunky]

 

3) If gravity is a natural function of matter, they why wouldn't electromagnetic be a natural function as well, what about the nuclear forces as well?

Gravity is a function of both space and matter: Matter tells space how to warp. And warped space tells matter how to move (Wheeler).

Edited September 19, 2013 by StringJunky

[swansont]

As I understand the Casimir effect, two conducting parallel uncharged plates attract each other in a vacuum.

 

On this I make the following suggestions.

 

1) First of all, by introducing those plates we've introduced contamination to a vacuum.

 

The region between the plates is a "vacuum environment"

 

2) Secondly the plates are very close to together, because the effect drops off at range.

Yes, the effect becomes too small to notice when the separation distance becomes larger.

 

3) If gravity is a natural function of matter, they why wouldn't electromagnetic be a natural function as well, what about the nuclear forces as well?

Is anyone claiming that they aren't? Einstein mentioned gravity because he was asked about gravity.

 

The theory appears to go into some complexities about virtual photons, and say that light pressure is the reason for the attractions and that this is the evidence that proves a vacuum is never empty of matter.

 

To which I point out the following very obvious observations I've made.

 

1) Matter "clumps" together. This is a fact, due to the forces that influence matter ( and if we take Einstein's premise that gravity isn't separate from matter as true ) we get different levels of clumping on all scales. Quarks, gluons, photons and electrons, groups of atoms clump, cells clump, dirt clumps, planets clump, stars clump, galaxies clump, etc etc.

 

So given that we see two large peices of metal being drawn to each other, can we really be surprised?

Yes, we can. The instrument that is physics is not so dull as to stop at "things clump together". We quantify effects and identify interactions. The attraction is not what we'd expect from gravity. Absent quantum mechanics, or under an assumption that the vacuum is actually empty, the effect would be very surprising.

 

Also has this experiment been done in completely shielded environments? They specify that it must be "uncharged, conductive plates" there's a heck of a lot of radio wave energy on earth, given the surface area of the plates I don't see it as impossible that they might be picking up a charge from radiowaves and thus producing a weak magnetic pull on each other.

Implying the experimenters were incompetent is not a particularly convincing gambit, IMO.

 

Also, how would one "pick up a charge" from radio waves, and then have this electric charge exert a magnetic pull?

[Daniel Foreman]

I am very suspicious of this experiment. I can accept that two uncharged conductive plates when suspended in a vacuum draw themselves to each other.

 

This doesn't prove that a vacuum is made up of matter. It just proves that when you introduce matter into a vacuum they are drawn to each other. So what? Atoms repell and pull on each other, how does this proves that the space between them is made up of matter.

 

Therefore logically space can not be made up of matter, and since it exists, space must have an independent existence from matter.

[Didymus]

Weak point in that experiment: define "uncharged." It would be as difficult to reach an absolutely uncharted state as it is for matter to reach a state of absolute 0 temperature.... I.e. impossible.

 

What is the simplest explanation: that there was the smallest electromotive pressure differential+small gravitational effect+the possibility that the two plates experienced some inertial forces?

 

....or that virtual particals wink in and out of existance from nothingness/parallel dimensions?

 

...shen It they successfully causes both plates to be perfectly discharged relative to each other, simply moving them to the test area could induce at least a minor charge.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Didymus

[pantheory]

I am very suspicious of this experiment. I can accept that two uncharged conductive plates when suspended in a vacuum draw themselves to each other.

 

This doesn't prove that a vacuum is made up of matter. It just proves that when you introduce matter into a vacuum they are drawn to each other. So what? Atoms repell and pull on each other, how does this proves that the space between them is made up of matter.

 

Therefore logically space can not be made up of matter, and since it exists, space must have an independent existence from matter.

 

Yes, It would not seem to prove that the vacuum consists of matter, as in the many hypothetical proposals of background field Higg's particles, dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, etc., but it might suggest that the vacuum consists of particulates, of other pure energy of some kind, that the stongest vectors of which are obsorbed by the presence of the two plates in very close proximity. One expanation could be vector obsorption by the two plates whereby lesser vectors would exist between the two plates could cause the plate to be pushed together by the full-force of the zero point energy field or extenal particulate extenal forces.

 

As to time: Time appears to be an interval of change in matter whose rate of change can be altered by its proximity and velocity relative to the center of a gravitational field. There are many unsettled, non-consenses opinions of time in present-day theory as it relates to models of quantuam theory and other theory. As arguments might wash out over time, I expect time will eventually be defined as a valuable "concept involving a metered interval measured by a rate of relative change in matter or energy, compared to a standard or measuring instrument/ device/ "measuring stick," which we call a clock -- and nothing more.

Edited September 21, 2013 by pantheory

[Daniel Foreman]

Indeed, and thus we return to this idea of time being nothing more than a test of comparative motion. It seems much simpler to retain time as something used to map previous and future predictions rather than promote it to an active element of the universe. Thus what we perceive as time is mere active motion from moment to moment.

 

By the same rule of simplicity I'm inclined to treat space as, well space. I'm not convinced that space is a function of matter as the Einstein quotation might suggest. I can accept that gravity is a function of matter as we have many examples demonstrating how large groups of matter draw themselves to each other. I can accept time is a function of matter, providing that time definition is based on motion at which point we are merely comparing different rates of motion. I can also accept that electromagnetism, nuclear forces are also a function of matter.

 

But space seems blatantly different from matter to me. It is to my mind, the one other thing in the universe we can observe (albeit it by shooting photons through it) is the emptiness between matter.

[Popcorn Sutton]

To address the OP, my opinion is that time can be reduced to changes in the position of the universe. This is my objective opinion.

 

If you want to be subjective about it, then time is an organized sequence of knowledge.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

discussion on space rather than time split off to its own topic

 

[TrappedLight]

!

Moderator Note

 

discussion on space rather than time split off to its own topic

 

 

Space rather than time?

 

Time is a space dimension.

[imatfaal]

Space rather than time?

 

Time is a space dimension.

No. They are all dimensions of spacetime - but time is not a spatial dimension, the metric makes that clear with the sign change.

 

 

 

The space metric with its plus sign is guardian of the invariant separation in space.

The spacetime metric with its minus sign is guardian of the invariant interval (cause and effect) in spacetime.

[Radarithm]

 

No. They are all dimensions of spacetime - but time is not a spatial dimension, the metric makes that clear with the sign change.

 

 

 

 

I agree.

[swansont]

No. They are all dimensions of spacetime - but time is not a spatial dimension, the metric makes that clear with the sign change.

And the premise of the thread is questioning that it is a dimension at all.