An Infinite Lapse of Time is Impossible and Unscientific

[Lino]

James, can I ask if you are saying that a future time slice (please forgive the clumsy language) does not currently exist, or that because a future time slice does not currently exist, one can not have infinite time?

Also, in relation to Zeno's cubit, would you agree that there is no limit to the length of road that I can measure (past), and that there is no limit to the length of road that I can plan to measure (future)? If I think of a clock in the same fashion, then there is no limit to the amount of time (past or future) that I could measure (and so can be infinite), but anything that I do measure is constrained witin a physical start/end point (and so can not be infinite). Therefore the difference, just like infinity, is a philosophical one between 'could' and 'can'. I'm not sure that this agrues for or against what you are saying, but I'm also not sure that the difference is material.

(By the way, personally, I like Jack Smart's description and agree with his comments on simplisity.)

Regards,

Noel.

 

[andrewkirk]

To James Goetz.
In this thread you repeatedly refer to your argument that an 'infinite elapsed time' is impossible but as haelfix pointed out on pages 1, you have not presented an argument. All you have done is restate the same assertion in different ways and dance around the issue.

An argument consists of premises and conclusions connected by logically valid steps. You have not presented any premises, nor any logical steps.

You will also need to define what you mean by an 'infinite elapsed time'.

Note to the moderators: This thread should be moved to the philosophy subforum because it is not physics.

 

[andrewkirk]

...The time traveler with no apparent limits could never travel an infinite number of Planck times.

This observation excludes the possibility of all cosmology models with a past infinite elapse of Planck time.

Follow-on to my previous post. I see you made this reply to haelfix. Yet you still did not present an argument, only a thought experiment. Even assuming this thought experiment enables you to conclude that your first sentence quoted above is true, the second sentence is a non sequiteur, an utterly unfounded leap. There is no reason at all to suppose that it follows from the first sentence. But, as noted above, it requires definition of what is a cosmology model 'with a past infinite elapse of Planck time'. Without such a definition, the leap is not even wrong.

 

[SpaceTiger]

In sum, this post holds that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation.

I'd say the point is largely irrelevant to the scientific process, since any of the current cosmological models could simply turn out to be local approximations. Even if the models formally project to infinity, there is no way we could distinguish between a universe that is truly infinite in time and one that very slowly transitions into something else at very late times. A similar argument could be made for just about any infinity you find in scientific models.

It's really more of a philosophical debate, I think. As long as a model continues to fit the data, there's no scientific benefit to introducing an ad hoc tweak to make it finite.

 

[karahka]

I believe that time has gone on forever and it will do that forever in the future. You say it is impossible, i think different.

 

[Whovian]

I believe that time has gone on forever and it will do that forever in the future. You say it is impossible, i think different.

We have quite a bit of evidence that time "started" about 13.6*10⁹ years ago, and we have quite a bit of evidence that the Universe will have some sort of death, be it the Big Rip, Big Crunch, or Big Chill, and we can't forget the heat death. Doubting the validity of the Big Bang Theory without the intervention of something creating the Universe so that it's younger than the Big Bang Theory predicts (such as a God creating the Universe a few thousand years ago) would be doubting the validity of General Relativity.

To the OP: The eternalism is just a matter of philosophy, deciding whether or not we want to consider time time in the sense most people think of it or as just another dimension, as the spatial ones are. This has nothing to do with whether or not an infinite lapse of time is possible.

As far as I can tell, your argument goes something along the lines of "a clock can never show infinity as its time interval, therefore, we can't have an infinite interval of time." It depends on how we define infinite time. If we define it as two points along a timeline being infinitely far apart, that's obviously impossible, as it would be impossible to get any sort of information to travel between them to compare anything, such as times. However, the usual definition is that either (assuming one can invent a time machine that takes them an arbitrary amount of time into the past, which is obviously impossible, but just as a thought experiment) one can go an arbitrary amount of time into the past (possible/impossible depending on your model for the Big Bang, whether or not we have a cyclic Universe) or an arbitrary amount of time into the Future (which is perfectly possible with gravitational fields or a bit of special relativity.) That is, there are no bounds on how far you can go into the past or the future (assuming you've invented something that can take you into the past or the future.) And this is perfectly possible. So all you're doing is getting the definition wrong, and misinterpreting what infinity means in this context. (The infinity we're talking about is similar to the definition used in calculus, and quite different from the one used in set theory.)

 

[Jack Smart]

I believe that time has gone on forever and it will do that forever in the future. You say it is impossible, i think different.

Time measures changes. That's all it does. Its not a dimension, or an entity. It's a measurement, like distance. It measures the relative duration between events. So, if there is no "change" happening - no events - then there is nothing to measure. Hence then time doesn't "exist". (Not that an abstract measuring system has a real existence anyway).

So "time" will go on forever ONLY IF change (or events) go on forever. [Whats causes change? Energy differential? So time is a function of energy differential]. Once all change has ceased, time therefore ends.
see here for better explanation:-
www.thisistime.co.uk

 

[Whovian]

Time measures changes. That's all it does. Its not a dimension, or an entity. It's a measurement, like distance. It measures the relative duration between events. So, if there is no "change" happening - no events - then there is nothing to measure. Hence then time doesn't "exist". (Not that an abstract measuring system has a real existence anyway).

So "time" will go on forever ONLY IF change (or events) go on forever. [Whats causes change? Energy differential? So time is a function of energy differential]. Once all change has ceased, time therefore ends.
see here for better explanation:-
www.thisistime.co.uk

True, but spatial dimensions are also "just" measurements. This doesn't exclude time from being a dimension. And special relativity (or, rather, a very common interpretation of it) suggests that time is a full-on bloomin' dimension.

 

[Whovian]

Sorry, flippin' kindle won't let me edit the previous post.

It seems the post I was replying to was talking philosophy as opposed to science, and most of this thread is the same. Should this be in the philosophy section?

 

[Whovian]

Sorry, flippin' kindle won't let me edit the previous post.

It seems the post I was replying to was talking philosophy as opposed to science, and most of this thread is the same. Should this be in the philosophy section?

 

[Jack Smart]

True, but spatial dimensions are also "just" measurements. This doesn't exclude time from being a dimension. And special relativity (or, rather, a very common interpretation of it) suggests that time is a full-on bloomin' dimension.

Two VERY important things to say here. Firstly you are wrong. Distance and time are both measurements. Distance measures the dimension "space". Distance is not itself a dimension. Space is the dimension to which distance refers.
Similarly time can be likened to distance. It just measures. And the dimension that time measures is "change".
So "change" is the dimension to which time refers. If you understand this subtle but fantastic thing, you will now be having a double-helix moment. I'll repeat it - change is the dimension to which time refers.

Secondly - The world of you physicists have broken a cardinal rule of academic study. You have failed to explain your terms. You have never bottomed out a core definition of "Time" and have consequently bandied the word around with astonishing rashness, and as a result poured out tons of bovine excrement. Ask Prof Hawkins why he wrote a book on the subject but admitted in the first page of that book he doesn't know what Time is.

So, yes this is not a physics blog, I am no physicist. It is a semantics blog I am posting. But unless you physicist get your collective heads around the core definition of Time you will carry on trying to explain the unexplainable - e.g. you will talk about infinite time when you mean infinite change.

If you understand this about change, then you will easily get to the realisation that everything exist in its own unique change dimension (I've coined the term- change stream). Yes, every quantum particle has its own change dimension ("time dimension" using your poor terminology). You could say, rashly, that there are zillions of time dimensions.

Again, have a look at this www.thisistime.co.uk. Remember, you read it here first..enjoy!

 

[Chalnoth]

Two VERY important things to say here. Firstly you are wrong. Distance and time are both measurements. Distance measures the dimension "space". Distance is not itself a dimension. Space is the dimension to which distance refers.
Similarly time can be likened to distance. It just measures. And the dimension that time measures is "change".

You're not making any sense. Dimensions are a very well-defined concept in physics, and your description doesn't bear any resemblance to that definition. Dimensions are a counting of the number of independent parameters required to define an object's shape or position. A rectangle, having length and width, is a two-dimensional object. More complicated two-dimensional shapes can be defined using a series of pairs of parameters defining the vertices. Three-dimensional objects requires sets of three parameters to define their shapes.

 

[Jack Smart]

You're not making any sense. Dimensions are a very well-defined concept in physics, and your description doesn't bear any resemblance to that definition. Dimensions are a counting of the number of independent parameters required to define an object's shape or position. A rectangle, having length and width, is a two-dimensional object. More complicated two-dimensional shapes can be defined using a series of pairs of parameters defining the vertices. Three-dimensional objects requires sets of three parameters to define their shapes.

What I am saying is that the 4th dimension is not universal. It is specific to every individual quantum particle (in fact every composite object too). Its usually called time, so I am saying that Time is not a general, universal dimension. Everything exits in its own unique time (I really mean change rate) dimension.

So, if you have two atomic clocks calibrated identically, and you send one of them into space, and then bring it back, and lo they have diverged. This isn't because time has bent or curverd or warped. It is because they both have unique, non synchronised change dimensions. What has caused these to diverge? I don't know, that's for clever physicist to work out. What I do know is that saying sillly things like time has curved is to misunderstand what time is. Time isn't universal. And it most certainly isn't the casue of this divergence, it merely identifies it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

No physics content for quite some time here.