Is Time Real? Proving Its Existence

  • Thread starter Zac Einstein
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Time
In summary: The alternative view is that time does not exist as a separate entity, that it is simply a mental construct created by humans.In summary, there is no definitive answer to the question of whether or not time really exists.
  • #1
Zac Einstein
26
0
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time? :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Zac Einstein said:
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time? :smile:

I don't know the answer to that, but it seems a bit like asking is there a single equation that proves the existence of length, height of width.

Also, as equations are basically a way of explaining the real universe mathematically, it seems that asking that sort of question creates a bit of paradox. If we experience it, we know it is real.

Anyway, that is probably a bit too philosophical and not what you were after! :~)
 
  • #3
There's no definite answer, but there was a great episode of Through The Wormhole on this exact question on the science channel recently and it covered quite a few theories.
 
  • #4
Zac Einstein said:
Does time really Exist?
What do you mean by "really Exist"? Do you have a definition or experimental procedure that allows us to distinguish between things that "really Exist" and things that don't?
 
  • #5
cowmoo32 said:
There's no definite answer
I suspect there is not even a definite question. You need to have a definite question before you can even hope to have a definite answer.
 
  • #6
for us to prove the existence of time we must first establish the definition of time. as you see described ratherwell by Einstein should you read his papers. However a logician would point out to you that should time not have existed, you wouldn't have been able to finish the sentence you just posted online, therefore there is a passage of some quantity that allowed your motion through space
 
  • #7
Zac Einstein said:
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time? What is time? :smile:

IMO, "change" proves the existence of time, far as how we define time goes. One such equation ... t=d/v. Time is the natural progression of events perceived by material entity. It's likely that our notion and definition of time is yet incomplete. Time will tell :)

GrayGhost
 
  • #8
:uhh:

Time will tell
Yes, sir :smile:

What do you mean by "really Exist"? Do you have a definition or experimental procedure that allows us to distinguish between things that "really Exist" and things that don't?
Yes, sir :smile:

as you see described ratherwell by Einstein should you read his papers.
Where where where ? where can I read his papers, sir? huh? :bugeye:
 
  • #9
Zac Einstein said:
Where where where ? where can I read his papers, sir? huh? :bugeye:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/

But I disagree with ardie's assertion that Einstein somehow defined time. DaleSpam's #4 is right on target, IMO.
 
  • #10
Zac Einstein said:
Where where where ? where can I read his papers, sir? huh? :bugeye:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/" [Broken]

GrayGhost
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
This is a very philosophical debate indeed - is time simply a means of quantification or is it some kind of ethereal absolute?

I read Jim al-Khalili's book about Quantum Physics some time back, and I'm sure it was in there that he brought up the concept of having an infinite multiverse.

I contemplated an extension of this, that being that if we, as conscious entities, were constantly jumping into a new universe at immeasurably fast rates, were we actually standing still in time while the multiverse moved around us? More like existing as a sequence of multiversal snapshots, kind of like when you make a flip book with a little stick man doing different things.. you flip the pages, and it makes him look as if he's moving.
 
  • #12
dan_r said:
This is a very philosophical debate indeed - is time simply a means of quantification or is it some kind of ethereal absolute?

I read Jim al-Khalili's book about Quantum Physics some time back, and I'm sure it was in there that he brought up the concept of having an infinite multiverse.

I contemplated an extension of this, that being that if we, as conscious entities, were constantly jumping into a new universe at immeasurably fast rates, were we actually standing still in time while the multiverse moved around us? More like existing as a sequence of multiversal snapshots, kind of like when you make a flip book with a little stick man doing different things.. you flip the pages, and it makes him look as if he's moving.

You could think of this anyway if time is quantized at the Planck scale. But whether there actually exist pages in your flip-book other than the current one I doubt very much. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein:

'There was no then then.'
 
  • #13
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?

We can't "prove" much of anything. I don't think we could even get a definition of time with which most would agree:

Wikipedia provides one view:

Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view... The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure... This second view... holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

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

You can read a few comments there about an operational definition of time...a convenience so we can proceed to measure things...

But we do need to think about such things, else progress will never be made.
 
  • #14
According to Google, this post had a page 2, and I seem to recall it being longer. Whahappened?
 
  • #15
The moderators determined that some of the content was in violation of the PF rules and so they removed it.
 
  • #16
DaleSpam said:
The moderators determined that some of the content was in violation of the PF rules and so they removed it.

It must have been for one of my best lines; in other words, one of my worst lines.
 
  • #17
.I would define time in relation to the change in objects . If an object moves from point X to point Y, the difference in it's state between the two points could be described as a product of the time passed.
For example, a neutron moves from point X to point Y. At point X it has a value of 1 (no specific value). At point Y, it has a value of 10. This means that an increase of 9 has occured.
It is impossible to quantify time, so it is best described as an infinite variable. Meaning it's value depends entirely on the values that have changed.
Going back to the example, the time would be given as the distance divided by the magnitude of the change in the value.
Time need not, however rely on distance to be calculated. It could be any variable that changes. If a value does not change, then it's change is zero, which still is a value.
A millenium is as effective at quantifying time as a picosecond- they are both frames of referance by which a system can be examined, and the states at the start and end point compared.
Time could therefore be seen as not a property of nature, but an effective way for humans to referance the change in a system.
Sorry if i was really bad at explaining this, i will try to clarify in response to questions
 
  • #18
Let us for a moment define time. It is/was/will-be something that will extend from the present into the future, and did extend into the past. Any problems with this claim?

Obviously, not all of time exists at the present. Consider what "exist" means. Exist refers to the present. It has other tense to refer past and future. Any disagreement here?

Some of time was in the past and some will be in the future. Does anyone wish to claim that time is presently in the future or that time is presently in the past?

The "presently past" is something I would call an oxymoron. Anyone have a problem with that?

Words have shared meaning. Words are the majority conveyence of information on this forum. Bending them around to fit drawings on paper to razzle-dazzle readers should be left to Brian Greene, in my opinion.

If I claimed the future does not exist, would anyone have a problem with that?

If I claim the past does not exist, would anyone have a problem with this?
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Phrak said:
If I claimed the future does not exist, would anyone have a problem with that?

If I claim the past does not exist, would anyone have a problem with this?

I think it's currently impossible to tell if this is true or not, it could be the future and past actually do exist but are just "invisible" to us since we live at the "now". But it could also be that "now" is all there is, how would you go about proving such a thing?
 
  • #20
I don't know why this topic keeps popping up like a zit.

What if a phenomenon is characterized by the property of something. Would that qualify for that something to "exist"? Case in point: an object is characterized by its dimension. Does that imply that "space" exist?

If that is so, then look at the numerous phenomena that are characterized via the broken time reversal symmetry (google it. You'd be surprised at what you would find as some of the more "common" things that are described by such symmetry breaking).

So now, ask yourself this. If these things are characterized by the symmetry of something, wouldn't it be rather silly for that "something" to not exist? After all, we depend on it, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as a characteristic in describing such phenomena. Is this a typical description for something that doesn't exist?

Zz.
 
  • #21
ZapperZ said:
I don't know why this topic keeps popping up like a zit.

What if a phenomenon is characterized by the property of something. Would that qualify for that something to "exist"? Case in point: an object is characterized by its dimension. Does that imply that "space" exist?

If that is so, then look at the numerous phenomena that are characterized via the broken time reversal symmetry (google it. You'd be surprised at what you would find as some of the more "common" things that are described by such symmetry breaking).

So now, ask yourself this. If these things are characterized by the symmetry of something, wouldn't it be rather silly for that "something" to not exist? After all, we depend on it, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as a characteristic in describing such phenomena. Is this a typical description for something that doesn't exist?

Zz.


That's a good angle ZapperZ. Perhaps the same as saying "Time exists no more or less then a rising sun or ticking clock.
 
  • #22
Zac Einstein said:
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time? :smile:
ZapperZ said:
I don't know why this topic keeps popping up like a zit.

Zz.

Zz, Zac, (wow three z's in two names, that is unique)

I am not an expert here, and haven't read it yet, but just picked up: "https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195145925/?tag=pfamazon01-20" by Julian Barbour (have read summary reviews, but not the book). Would this (Zz) go a long way in addressing the OP's question ?

Rhody... :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Ahm...ahm :approve:
Excuse me, I see everyone has his own opinion :grumpy:
How about this, I think time exists but in a relative way :approve:
 
  • #24
Zac Einstein said:
Ahm...ahm :approve:
Excuse me, I see everyone has his own opinion :grumpy:
How about this, I think time exists but in a relative way :approve:

How about this these are perspectives on time, not opinions.
 
  • #25
rhody said:
I am not an expert here, and haven't read it yet, but just picked up: "https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195145925/?tag=pfamazon01-20" by Julian Barbour (have read summary reviews, but not the book).
That remains one of the most disappointing books that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
DaleSpam said:
That remains one of the most disappointing books that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
Care to elaborate ? Lee Smolin thought it was pretty good.

Rhody...
 
  • #27
rhody said:
Care to elaborate ? Lee Smolin thought it was pretty good.
I was expecting a book that would explain how all of the physics formulas could be re-written to eliminate time. Instead the book devolved into a very lengthy monologue on Mach's principle. Since the universe appears to be non-Machian that was disappointing to me. The book really missed the mark of presenting physics without time.
 
  • #28
nitsuj said:
How about this these are perspectives on time, not opinions.

Actually perspectives and opinions are the same thing, aren't they?
 
  • #29
Zac Einstein said:
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time? :smile:

In a conversation with the philosopher Rudolph Carnap, Einstein remarked that the problem of Now worried him seriously. He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics.
 
  • #30
Time can be thought of as beeing a measure of periodic processes. If we didn't have periodic processes in nature we probably didn't care or wouldn't be able to measure time.

The first time measurements were using the periodicity of the sun trajectory on the sky, later using timeglasses etc.

A nice thought experiment would be if someone can detach the notion of periodicity from the above definition of time and still get something meaningful.
 
  • #31
atomthick said:
Time can be thought of as beeing a measure of periodic processes. If we didn't have periodic processes in nature we probably didn't care or wouldn't be able to measure time.

The first time measurements were using the periodicity of the sun trajectory on the sky, later using timeglasses etc.

A nice thought experiment would be if someone can detach the notion of periodicity from the above definition of time and still get something meaningful.

Think of an exposed cliff with all its geological layers on top of each other. No periodic process necessary to explain it, just one way direction of gravity demonstrating the existence of time.
 
  • #32
Zac Einstein said:
Does time really Exist?

It seems like you would not want to characterize time as something that exists. Space and objects exist. It seems that time is required for the existence of things. And it seems that time would be required for consciousness.

I don't recall an adequate accounting for time in any literature.
 
  • #33
DaleSpam said:
I was expecting a book that would explain how all of the physics formulas could be re-written to eliminate time. Instead the book devolved into a very lengthy monologue on Mach's principle. Since the universe appears to be non-Machian that was disappointing to me. The book really missed the mark of presenting physics without time.

Like DaleSpam I found Julian Barbour's "The End of Time" to be a letdown. Maybe because it promised far too much. He made a reasonable case that the psychological impression of time as specifically linked to the sequence of 3-D events observed by a conscious being could be an illusion. That idea comes out of the block universe concept and is of course not at all an original Barbour idea.

Even accepting the block universe concept, he falls far short of making the case that there is no time. The block universe still needs time to exist. And the consciousness that observes the Special Relativity evidence of a block universe needs time.

He deals with consciousness trivially and never makes it clear how you have conciousness without time.

One of his major concepts, referred to as "Platonia", draws on the extension of the familiar configuration space of physics to four dimensions. Not a bad idea to think about, but again, I don't see how that fundamentally eliminates time. Richard Feynman's work with 4-D QM of course preceded this idea.

Barbour and Lee Smolin are evidently good friends and are quite complimentary of each other's idea.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
bobc2 said:
Like DaleSpam I found Julian Barbour's "The End of Time" to be a letdown. Maybe because it promised far too much. He made a reasonable case that the psychological impression of time as specifically linked to the sequence of 3-D events observed by a conscious being could be an illusion. That idea comes out of the block universe concept and is of course not at all an original Barbour idea.

Even accepting the block universe concept, he falls far short of making the case that there is no time. The block universe still needs time to exist. And the consciousness that observes the Special Relativity evidence of a block universe needs time.

He deals with consciousness trivially and never makes it clear how you have conciousness without time.

It is necessarily true that we 'experience' 'time'. Whether the block universe model is 'true' or not is purely a philosophical point since there will never be a way to measure its existence. The closest that I have come across are the delayed choice experiments proposed by John Wheeler and succesfully performed by others. In these experiments photons are emited into an experimental set up and then in 'flight' the apparatus is altered in a random way which
produces results identical to what are produced if the apparatus was originally in the new configuration. John Wheeler's interpretation is that the experimenter altered the history of the photons by his actions. Clearly no one likes the idea that every action we perform is just part of some proscribed diorama.

The block universe, if that is what 'this' is, does not 'need' consciousness.

mathal
 
  • #35
We have the notion of time because we can mentaly order events by their appearance.

Probably the only thing that creates the notion of time is causality, therefore a theory that doesn't involve time might be also non-causal. Anyway, if time didn't existed wouldn't all just happen at once?
 
<h2>1. Is time a physical or conceptual phenomenon?</h2><p>Time is both a physical and conceptual phenomenon. On a physical level, time is measured by the movement of objects and the change of events. On a conceptual level, time is a human construct used to organize and understand the world around us.</p><h2>2. Can time be proven to exist?</h2><p>The existence of time cannot be proven in the same way that we can prove the existence of physical objects. However, the concept of time is essential for understanding and predicting the behavior of the universe, making it a fundamental aspect of our reality.</p><h2>3. How do we measure time?</h2><p>Time is commonly measured using clocks and calendars, which are based on the movement of celestial bodies such as the Earth's rotation around the sun. Atomic clocks, which measure the vibrations of atoms, are the most accurate way to measure time.</p><h2>4. Does time flow in a linear or cyclical manner?</h2><p>This is a philosophical question that has been debated for centuries. Some argue that time is linear, meaning it moves in a straight line from past to present to future. Others believe that time is cyclical, with events repeating themselves in a never-ending cycle.</p><h2>5. Can time be manipulated or controlled?</h2><p>While humans have developed ways to measure and understand time, we do not have the ability to manipulate or control it. The laws of physics dictate the passage of time, and it is not possible for us to change its course or speed.</p>

1. Is time a physical or conceptual phenomenon?

Time is both a physical and conceptual phenomenon. On a physical level, time is measured by the movement of objects and the change of events. On a conceptual level, time is a human construct used to organize and understand the world around us.

2. Can time be proven to exist?

The existence of time cannot be proven in the same way that we can prove the existence of physical objects. However, the concept of time is essential for understanding and predicting the behavior of the universe, making it a fundamental aspect of our reality.

3. How do we measure time?

Time is commonly measured using clocks and calendars, which are based on the movement of celestial bodies such as the Earth's rotation around the sun. Atomic clocks, which measure the vibrations of atoms, are the most accurate way to measure time.

4. Does time flow in a linear or cyclical manner?

This is a philosophical question that has been debated for centuries. Some argue that time is linear, meaning it moves in a straight line from past to present to future. Others believe that time is cyclical, with events repeating themselves in a never-ending cycle.

5. Can time be manipulated or controlled?

While humans have developed ways to measure and understand time, we do not have the ability to manipulate or control it. The laws of physics dictate the passage of time, and it is not possible for us to change its course or speed.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
501
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
809
Back
Top