Does Time Exist? Science Explains 4 Dimensions & Timelines

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter billa12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of time and its existence in relation to three-dimensional and four-dimensional objects, as well as the implications of different scientific theories, such as relativity and quantum mechanics. Participants question whether time is a fundamental aspect of reality or merely a useful construct, and how this affects our understanding of existence and perception.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that objects may exist as three-dimensional entities that cease to exist when they change, while others suggest they are four-dimensional and persist due to the existence of time.
  • One participant argues that science does not definitively address the existence of time, suggesting that this is more a philosophical question, while science provides models under specific conditions.
  • Another viewpoint describes time as a coordinate, with real-world objects moving through four dimensions, but acknowledges the difficulty in fully understanding what time represents physically.
  • Questions arise about the implications of time for different objects, such as humans versus inanimate objects, and how perception complicates the understanding of time.
  • Participants discuss the concept of worldlines in relativity, noting that they represent the existence of an object through time and space, and how this differs from the treatment of time in quantum mechanics.
  • One participant raises the idea that if time is merely movement, then only the present exists, leading to the notion that an object may not be connected to its past.
  • Another participant questions whether there is a difference in interpretation between three-dimensional and four-dimensional views and whether any experiment could distinguish between them.
  • Concerns are expressed about the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to the double-slit experiment, and whether non-human entities experience time similarly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of time and its implications for existence. There is no consensus on whether time exists as a fundamental aspect of reality or as a useful construct, nor on how different objects relate to time.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding time, particularly in distinguishing between philosophical interpretations and scientific models. The discussion remains open-ended with unresolved questions about the implications of different theories.

billa12
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Are there 3 dimenionsional objects that exist for a moment and cease to exist everytime they change or are they 4 dimenionsional objects that persists because time exists? To better illustrate imagine a timeline, I today don`t know the answer and I later kow the answer. Opposed to the idea that I am 2 people because of these 2 events. I can here because I want science answer. What does science have to say?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think science has much to say about what exists, that is the job of philosophy (and that's a bit of a rub, because science is designed to be objective and demonstrable, but philosophy has a hard time aspiring to either of those!). What science tells us is under what conditions it behooves us to model time as existing (like a world line in relativity), and under what conditions it behooves us to model time as a parameter or index used to reference an experimental outcome (like in quantum mechanics). Do the successes or failures of either approach tell us if time exists or not? Not in any scientific sense, but it certainly is a good launching point for the philosophical inquiry. In a very real way, science was originally invented by philosophy to accomplish exactly that purpose, but it has since taken on a life of its own with other goals like achieving some mastery over our environment (which it does without ever needing to know, or even caring, whether or not time exists).
 
I just think of time as a coordinate, and real world objects are three dimensional which move in four dimensions. Think of a shadow moving across a curved surface, the shadow is completely two dimensional, but it can still move in three dimensions.

Although it's a bad analogy because time as a dimension is different from the spatial dimensions, and honestly I don't think anyone can truly visualize or understand in any satisfactory way what time actually represents physically.
 
What does behoove mean? I looked it up and can't seem to understand how it fits into the sentences.

What is a worldline, are you referring to string theory?

What does "experimental outcome (like in quantum mechanics)" mean?

Is time just movement so only the present exists and an object is not connected to its past in other words it is 2 different objects? Sorry if I am repeating myself.
 
Last edited:
billa12 said:
What does behoove mean? I looked it up and can't seem to understand how it fits into the sentences.
"Behooves us" means "benefits or befits us to do." I guess it means it gives us hooves or something! You were probably looking at the "it is our duty to do" element, I was stressing more the beneficial element, like it is our duty to do physics in such a way as to benefit humanity.
What is a worldline, are you referring to string theory?
A worldline is the track of a particle through spacetime, so it carries the aspect of "existent time" that you were talking about-- the worldline exists at all times and at all the places it visits, it is a set of events that does not need time to "sweep out" in successive order. It is a geometric construct.
What does "experimental outcome (like in quantum mechanics)" mean?
In quantum mechanics, time is not an observable, nor does it sweep out from one moment to the next, it is simply a way to index an observation-- we say the probability of outcome A at time t is p(A,t). So to predict an observation, we reference what the clock reads-- but we don't care if there were any times before or after that, it's just a way of labeling which observation we are trying to predict. Note that is not at all how time is treated in relativity, where it has a geometric meaning that requires all times to exist to define the meaning of the spacetime manifold whose geometric properties are under consideration. Being geometric, time is treated on a similar footing with space, but in quantum mechanics, posiition is an observable and time is a way of indexing what position measurement is being referred to.
Is time just movement so only the present exists and an object is not connected to its past in other words it is 2 different objects?
That question is probably deeper than either relativity or quantum mechanics, but those theories do give a different flavor to how they inspire answers to that philosophical question. I would say that QM inspires an answer more along the lines that the object has no continuous existence in time-- we say a particle can go through two slits without having to go through one or the other or even both, it is simply indeterminate which slit it went through. But relativity inspires an answer more along the lines that the object does have a continuous existence at all times along its world line, indeed the whole concept of a "world line" suggests that a particle is a one-dimensional entity, rather than a zero-dimensional entity. String theory takes the dimensionality even farther, but I'm not any kind of expert on that.

My point is simply that physics is not a monolithic structure that provides answers to questions like that-- it is a body of useful theories, and we choose what theory we want in what situation and for what purpose. Different theories inspire different answers to the various philosophical questions one might hope physics would answer-- and that's exactly why physics doesn't really answer philosophical questions, rather it shows that questions like that (that combine philosophy and science) probably don't have unique answers in the first place. But they are still good questions to ask-- not because they have a single answer, but because their multiple answers are an informative way to understand the various theories of physics.
 
Lets say you have a ball it is eventually going to fall down doesn't that mean that time matters? I don't have time today to read carefully through your post, I got there are 2 main theories, so if this Contradicts than ignore it. So does it make a differnece in the object you use is say a human or a ball or light?
 
It certainly makes a difference if the object is a human, because then we are doing more than just predicting behavior-- we have perceptions to account for. This complicates the meaning of time a great deal-- because a human has a concept of the experience of time, and that's where the idea that time "marches along" one moment to the next comes in. In quantum mechanics, say the two-slit experiment, we are usually only interested in a particular time-- the time the particle hits the screen. The experiment gives us no information about what happened at earlier times, so it leaves those happenings entirely indeterminate, and there is no need to "tell a story" about what happened to the particle before it hits the screen. But a human would have perceptions all along that path, so any human being could not be used in a two-slit experiment, they are constantly observing their status and drawing inferences and forming memories. So time means something quite a bit different for a human than for a particle. There may also be a difference in the meaning of time for a human, and for a macro object like a boulder, but this is less clear and will get you into tricky philosophical waters.
 
Good answers already, I'll just add...
>>Are there 3 dimenionsional objects that exist for a moment and cease to exist everytime they change or are they 4 dimenionsional objects that persists because time exists

Is there a difference in your two views? Is there any conceivable experiment which would show a different answer based on which of these is right?
If not then it is just a difference of interpretation.
 
If you record the double slit experiment and watch it at different time does it make a difference ? Also are you saying that humans do exist in 4d? What is it about the human mind that causes the double slit experiment? Does something have to be consious? What about an monkey or a dog or a bird or a plant?
 
  • #10
"What is it about the human mind that causes the double slit experiment?"
Nothing. That is an over-interpretation of the Copenhagen version of quantum theory
"Does something have to be conscious?"
No
"What about an monkey or a dog or a bird or a plant?"
The observer just refers to a macroscopic interaction, i.e. with anything big.
 
  • #11
What about gravitational time dilation, that affects GPS satellites?

Isn't proof enough that time exists? If it didn't exist, how could it be affected by gravity?
 
  • #12
billa12 said:
If you record the double slit experiment and watch it at different time does it make a difference ?
Sure-- if you measure the location of the particle before it encounters the slits, it will change the interference pattern it creates on the other side of the slits.
Also are you saying that humans do exist in 4d?
Humans have a perception that we need to account for. That perception is of 4d. How we account for that perception is up to the philosophers!
What is it about the human mind that causes the double slit experiment? Does something have to be consious? What about an monkey or a dog or a bird or a plant?
Experimental outcomes are interpreted in our minds. We don't really know how dogs or birds or plants would interpret such an experiment.
 
  • #13
AlexKid said:
What about gravitational time dilation, that affects GPS satellites?

Isn't proof enough that time exists? If it didn't exist, how could it be affected by gravity?

I think this depends highly on what you consider time to be and how you define it. Does time exist? Since a clock measures time just like a ruler measures distance I would say yes. But Ken makes some good points in that depending on how you look at something one definition of time may not apply.
 
  • #14
Yes, I would say the first order of business is establishing what criterion you will accept for establishing what "exists." That is a time-honored philosophical question, and has spawned quite a few schools of thought over the years! You could begin your survey by looking up the term "ontology."
 
  • #15
Time is already treated at a level on par with space in relativity. In quantum mechanics, there have been some experiments with temporal double slit diffraction, akin to the Young's (spatial) double slit experiment. If you regard space as real, then you should regard time as real also.
 
  • #16
If gravity can affect how two different clocks measure time, then I think time is a physical entity.

If time wasn't a physical entity, how could it be affected by gravity?
 
  • #17
AlexKid said:
If gravity can affect how two different clocks measure time, then I think time is a physical entity.

If time wasn't a physical entity, how could it be affected by gravity?

Who has said it isn't?
 
  • #18
There's no point trying to decide if time is or is not a physical entity until one offers their definition of what a "physical entity" needs to be. For example, I can easily give a reason that we should think of time as a physical entity (two observers moving the same way between two events will measure the same result for the elapsed time), and I can easily give a reason why we should not think of it that way (two observers moving differently between two events will measure different results for the elapsed time). We could argue that the "physically existent" entity is actually (ct)2-x2, because that is the invariant quantity that always comes out the same, yet that is not something that we ever actually measure by itself! So the issue is far from clear. What exists-- what we measure, yet depends on us, or what does not depend on us, but we do not measure?
 
  • #19
Physics talks about time slowing down when reaching the speed of light and time slowing down when approaching a black hole and time stopping upon entering a black hole and the theoretical possiblility of going back or forward in time and also about the Arrow of Time.

I think time is more of a relative measurement of events. The number of Sunrises, the point miday when the sun is near its apex. The number of heartbeats in a year, the vibrations of an atomic clock. As such, if you are properly shielded and nearing a black hole or nearing the speed of light would your heart slow to a point that it nearly stops, I don't think so. If, again with proper shielding, when you entered a black hole would time stop. If it does then you couldn't actually enter the black hole, you would forever be in some never land on no time. What would your heart do in that situation.

It is said that time did not exist before the big bang. We don't know that. It certainly began for what we call our Universe, but what if something did start the big bang, then their concept of time would be the time before the big bang and the time after the big bang.

If time is a measurements of events, then you cannot go backwards in time because those events have already happened and you cannot go forward because those events have not happened yet, therefore the Arrow of Time.

What are your thoughts?
 
  • #20
Does the present exist for a human and it is different person or does the past, present and future all exists for a human and it is the same person overtime?

I think according to relativity and einstein they all exist, correct?

According to quantum mechanics only the present exist, correct?


Since humans are composed of electrons does that mean that weird quantum effects can take place like particle entaglement and that a human could have effects of the double slit experiment inside the body? If that is true would this affect persistence of an individual?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
According to General Relativity, it says nothing about whether or not other times exist. The concept of the derivative might help.

According to Quantum Mechanics, it depends on which interpretation you're referring to.
 
  • #22
Double post
 
  • #23
What about this quote from einstein

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion"

Also what about the earlier posts in this forum that say that objects stays the same through time or is that different to what I said in my earlier post past present and future all existing?



What about the growing block universe? Doesn't relativity support that theory?
 
  • #24
There is no past, there is no future, there is only now. Now flows like a river, at different rates depending on how much water there is, the grade of the land, and other variables. Matter and Speed warp space time in a way that alters the water flowing through the river of time. But to someone on an raft, you're just goin with the flow. You wouldn't notice a difference.
 
  • #25
@Larsani
Have any citations for that? Do you have any evidence to support this hypothesis?
 
  • #26
Nah, not really. But think about it. Is there a time other than now? You can record what has happened at a previous time, or predict what might happen at a future time. But all that happens now. You can't observe the future. And to observe the past you need either a telescope or a recording device of some kind. And still that is not exactly the past. What you see, you see now. With a telescope, its just an effect of great distance. If you could instantaneously move from one place to another, what you have seen is not what you would see. What's happening now at a great distance is not what you observe from that distance.

Two people, one on Earth and one traveling 99% the speed of light (or any speed for that matter) both exist now. Time may pass more slowly for the person traveling at great speed. But this is only observable from an outside position. To that person traveling, now is still now and it takes just as long for things to happen from their persepctive. What I said about the river was just another way of saying this.
 
  • #27
Sorry for repeating myself but according to relativity does it not support that other times exist and that an object exists through time?

Here is an earlier post.

"A worldline is the track of a particle through spacetime, so it carries the aspect of "existent time" that you were talking about-- the worldline exists at all times and at all the places it visits, it is a set of events that does not need time to "sweep out" in successive order. It is a geometric construct."

Does theory of relativity still apply to the human brain? Or is the brain a quantum computer? And does the theory of relativity still apply in situations as opposed to quantum mechanics? Or do both apply depending on the situation

Quantum mechanics time doesn't exist because there is only probabilities. Correct?
 
  • #28
Let's say that at some time in the future we will figure out how to go to the past. Then why has there not been a visitor from the future bringing some proof that he is from the future. I'm sure such an advanced future could figure out how to do it. The newest therory is that there are many dimensions of time and that all outcomes have happened in one of those dimensions. Along with that theory, if you went back in time you would arrive in that dimension which you actually went back in time. It gets to be more conjecture than theory because there is no possible way to test it. A person can say just about anything.
 
  • #29
remmeler said:
Let's say that at some time in the future we will figure out how to go to the past. Then why has there not been a visitor from the future bringing some proof that he is from the future.
Well I think that time is like other three dimensions in this regard. Simply that mass is moving through time so there is nothing in the past (or future).
 
  • #30
@Larsani
The first paragraph is just clever wordplay. I do understand the point of your second paragraph, you see. to undestand the principle of relativity. But I think you made a mistake, in saying that the other observer seems to move more slowly. From the guy on Earth's point of view, the guy in the spaceship takes longer to do things, but from the point of view of the guy on the spacehip, he's at rest and Earth is moving at 99% c, and so people on Earth seem to go more slowly.

@billa12
First, again, relativity says nothing about if times other than the present exist. Special Relativity (which I think is what we're discussing) is perfectly compatible with Quantum Physics. And, I think, for all practical purposes, the brain is a computer.

As for your last statement, it depnds on your interpretation of QM.
 

Similar threads

High School What Is the Fourth Dimension and How Does It Work?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
High School Trying to understand what "time" is (layperson)
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Undergrad Does Time Drive Black Hole Travelers to a Central Singularity?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad Do we have to accept the physical existence of time?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
High School Question about "odometer" analogy and time dilation
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
High School Mechanics behind curved time causing gravitation/geodesics
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
High School The Fourth Dimension: A Measurement of Aging
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
High School Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
High School Moving in the 4th Dimension -- Does Time have a velocity?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K