Does Time Truly Exist or Is It Merely a Human Construct?

[reilly]

Billy T -- Interesting, but not new. The National Bureau of Standards uses an atomic clock to define a second as so many cycles of emitted light- if I recall correctly, the clock is a cesium atom. So, for most of us, time is indeed measured as a series of events, but in princple, two would do. As Einstein pointed out, time is what we measure with clocks.

We chose to call the variable describing the event time. Of course this is physicist's time and not necessarily philosophers time. There soon may be a neuroscience time, based on our brain's ability to have enough memory to be able to track changes -- and, of course, there are our circadian cycles.

Your mathematics. First, it does not prove the nonexistence of time in any mathematical sense. To do so, you would have to find a contradiction in the usual mathematical use of time in physics. With your scheme, I can always map back to normal physicist's time. And, all you have shown is what might be called a general covariance in time coordinates-- exactly what's done in general relativity. You just left out the spatial coordinates. For that matter, what you did for time, can be done for spatial coordinates as well. Put together the coordinates and time, and you have the general covariance part of GR. Einstein is all about events.

You are quite right to stress that events do not happen just because of the passage of time. But this idea goes way, way back. (It is, for example, discussed in two books I coauthored on the subject of urban dynamics, back in the late 70s.) From an Einsteinian perspective, physics is about the relationships among events, a perspective that's been around for over a century.

In your argument about removing time, you obviously must deal with functions that have an inverse, and as far as describing events that's a fairly restrictive constraint. Without even thinking about quantum theory, there are many phenomena that are random in nature. (Just to be clear, these are phenomena that cannot be precisely predicted, coin tosses, radioactive decay, noise in communication channels, business sales, molecular motion in diffusion(Einstein again)and on and on. And, most of the time we can compute the appropriate probabilities with standard techniques of proability, statistical, and stochastic process theories.) The point being, the equations of motion can't always be inverted for specific events.


Another important point, just for completeness. When physicists and mathematicians work with very general coordinate systems and transformations, they work with differential forms -- like transformations of all the covariant and contravarient vectors and tensors of Riemannian geometry. This is not easy stuff.

Finally, re the general covariance issue. It's based on the simple idea that events are independent of how they are described. That is we are free, for example, to use virtually any scheme we want to describe events -- like epicycles of old. But, for the most part, we use physicist's time t for pure convenience -- some times physicists go so far as to use an imaginary number for time.

Time exists? We're certainly programmed by evolution to have an innate sense of time. To the extent that we say tangible things exist, then our neural time-structure, probably exists, and clocks certainly exist.

So, what are the criteria to judge whether time exists?

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Tournesol]

No, it is not only because I have demonstrated that time is not required for a complete description of the the universe that I conclude time does not have any ontological status. This claim is also based on the two facts about which I think we have no dispute: (1)Time is not directly observable. (I am not saying that clocks do not exist, or that planets do not periodicly orbit the sun, etc.) and (2) Time passing is not the cause of anything, not why I am growing old, not why the hands of a clock advance, not why the sun rises etc.

Which are based on 2 disoutable assumptions:

1' Things don't exist unless they are directly observable
2' Things don't exist unless they cause other things.

Please give an example so I will have some idea what you are talking about.

Determinism implies prediction implies redundancy; if you can repdict
a.b and c from x, y and z, then ab, and c are informationally redundant.

I tend to agree we are finnaly making some progress towards mutual understanding, if not agreement. I will agree that if you define time to (exist and) be the thing that separates events, then I can not agrue with you. I could equally well define philogiston to (exist and) be the thing that makes all caloric measurements as they are. Such a definition would not make either time or philogiston a thing with real ontological status.

Phlogiston doesn't exist becuase it has the additional hypothetical property of being
emitted, not absorbed, during combustion.

I again admit that events change their nature, cause other events, etc. I just see no need for time (or philogiston) in any explanation for these things.

It explains (not causes) why events are not all on top of each other.

I won't go on - there does not seem to be much point. You claim I do not respond, when this shoe fits you very well. You define away the question as to time's ontological status, by defining it to be the separation between events. You did not comment on fact someone else noted that not every one even perceives time as continuous (Car seen far away suddenly is seen at 10 feet etc.)

a) If time is objective, their failure to perceive it correctly is just that.

b) who said that separations have to be continuous ?

 

[Billy T]

I agree with much of what you have to say, but will adda few corrections/comments

Billy T -- Interesting, but not new. The National Bureau of Standards uses an atomic clock to define a second as so many cycles of emitted light- if I recall correctly, the clock is a cesium atom. So, for most of us, time is indeed measured as a series of events, but in princple, two would do. As Einstein pointed out, time is what we measure with clocks.

Several times I have noted that I am not stating any thng new and probably not even the first to give this proof. Cesium was an earlier version. (Rubidium now I think.) The second is defined by about 12 atomic clocks. (The one at the Applied Physics Lab of JHU, where I worked for almost 30 years contributed a few percent - don't know if it still exist and does - Retired more than 10 years ago.)

One of Einstein's major accomplishment was to show that clocks in different frames indicated different amount of time lapse between the same two events. He knew full well that the interval between two events was not any definite thing. (Not 5 seconds, not 10 seconds, nor any other number of seconds.) Others have already pointed out in this thread that he and his friend, Goedel, questioned the existence of time. You must be putting words in Einstein's mouth. Please give a reference to where and when he said what you claim he did.

...Your mathematics. First, it does not prove the nonexistence of time in any mathematical sense. To do so, you would have to find a contradiction in the usual mathematical use of time in physics. With your scheme, I can always map back to normal physicist's time.

I only claim that the math shows time is not required for a complete discription of the universe. Here you are putting words in my mouth. I infer that time does not exist because of this and two other facts, given in recent post when Tournesol erroneously accusted me of the same claim (Time is not observable and causes nothing.) I admit the title of this thread is a little misleading. It should have been: "Time Does Not Exist - An Opinion, Supported by Math Showing Time is not Required to Describe Universe" but there are space limitations.

...In your argument about removing time, you obviously must deal with functions that have an inverse, and as far as describing events that's a fairly restrictive constraint.

Very good point. I have been expecting it for a long time, as the existence of the inverse function is essential to my proof. You seem to know something about "conformal mapping" and that not all transforms are one-to-one mapping. In the first post of this thread I noted that I was using example A = 15sin(7t) because it has a named inverse (the arcsig) "despite..." I really am surprised that it has taken so long for anyone to point out this flaw. - the failure of the simple inverse to exist in many-to-one mappings like the sin / arcsign. Congratualations.

The "rescue" of my proof gets a little complex and I did not want to do it, until forced. Basically every many-to-one mapping must be broken up into "indexed segments" For example, to stick with my original example of the A=sin(x) and working in degrees: Seg1 = 0<= x < 90 has the inverse (continuing my original notations of lower case letter with a prime/single quote for the inverse function) of a'1.
Seg2 = 90<= x < 270 with inverse: a'2
Seg3 = 270<= x < 450 with inverse a'3 etc (each segment spanning 180 degrees except the -90 to +90 segment is two.)
Now it gets very messy. I can no longer say:
t = a'(A,B,C...) = b'(A,B,C...) = c'(A,B,C...) ... and then reduce the number of equations by one by dropping the first (the t = ). Instead I must do something like:
tx = a'x(A,B,C...) = b'x(A,B,C...) = c'x(A,B,C...) and,
ty = a'y(A,B,C...) = b'y(A,B,C...) = c'y(A,B,C...) and,
tw = a'w(A,B,C...) = b'w(A,B,C...) = c'w(A,B,C...) and, ...etc.

where tx is that small interval of time common to all the one to one segments of the mappings on the right side of the first equation. etc. That is when any physical observable of concern begins to repeat, I give a new index number.

This seems very strange, but you are very familiar with this scheme. The Earth repeats it position after a year of travel around the sun. In contracts you sign, it is no good to have it stated that your mortage is completely paid on 30 June. You must give an index number for which 30 June. That is the current index number for the repeating position of the Earth going around the sun is 2005. That is all that is required, in principle, to rescue my proof, but it is very messy.

In physic, as normally used in the equations giving the functional relations between interacting objects, we neglect many things. For example, the gravity of Pluto is rarely consider even when planning a rocket trip from Earth to Mars. That is, the observables A,B,C,... are not, in pratice, of significant importance to consider many of them together. Thus, when eliminating time variable from a set of equations, it is only a relative short set, not the infinite large set of my formalism, that are used. Admitedly, if one is eliminating time from the equations which describe a physical observable which repeats in a short period, the "inverse function segments" will also be short. My example of the grandfather clock pendulum is a good illustration of this. Before the weights driving the clock mechanism need to be wound up again, the "index parameter" will achieve some rather large numerical values, but we always have an infinite supply new values, so that is just messy, not a problem. I might need to speak of half pendulum cycle 479,867,952 etc. for some segment of the inverse connecting the observable pendulum position to the variable "t" I am eliminate, piece-by-peice.

I will not go into such detail about your other concern where the sequents of events is either "random" and/or discrete (coin toss good example of both). Basically to rescue inverses, one simply makes a list and indexes it also. For example "head 475" "Tail476"... correspond to t475 and t476 respectively and one now has the required inverses, although they are not analytic functions - they are tabular functions. Given any t in the table one knows the H or T event. Given any H or T event in the tabulation one know the correcting t variable - I.e. not a problem to define the function or its inverse here either.

...tensors of Riemannian geometry. This is not easy stuff.

I agree. I was alway impressed by the compactness of tensor notation, summation being implied by repeated indexes, etc.

But, for the most part, we use physicist's time t for pure convenience -- some times physicists go so far as to use an imaginary number for time. Time exists? We're certainly programmed by evolution to have an innate sense of time. To the extent that we say tangible things exist, then our neural time-structure, probably exists, and clocks certainly exist. So, what are the criteria to judge whether time exists?

I agree the function of time approach is very convenient and very deep in man's thought patterns. As I think many lesser things are innate, I believe it is even innate. Glad you mentioned imaginiaryt - it does have some very useful applications. I should have mentioned it as many would be more inclined to understand that regular time variable t is also just a convenience.

Not really possible to prove nonexistance on anything; however, if one can demonstate, the postulated thing does not cause anything (and as an obvious consequence of this, is not observable) and that it is not necessary even for the discription of anything, then I for one am willing to assume the postulated thing does not have any claim to ontological status.

You definitely threw the best rock at me yet. Warm Regards, Billy T

 

[cronxeh]

Ok Billy T, I agree with you, but we have a problem. What is the alternative?

How would you synchronize sequences of events, motion, forces, to each other?

Lets start with classical physics. If my average speed was 20 miles per hour and I traveled 200 miles, then the time was 10 hours. This is well understood. However let's say my position simply changed - I was going on a plane tangent to the Earth (for example), and my path was a nonlinear function. I had beginning (x,y,z) and end (x',y',z'). The distance is 200 miles. sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2) = 200. This is all fine and neat. No time so far. The problem arises when another individual, call it hexnorc takes off from point (x',y',z') at same time as I am and travels in same direction as me. Somewhere along the function we meet - how do I find where? What if his speed is not 20? What if he stops and goes for unknown duration of time - I mean sure you can say but I just kept going and you can plot this and the point of collision will keep changing, and so on. But how do I do this without time?

 

[Billy T]

... Do we have some particle called "..." that carries time? (just like photons or something?)
... The smaller the repetitive natural event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be.
Can someone give me the smallest unit of time? If we take time t=d/c where c is speed of light the smallest time unit we can get is bound only by our measurement is it not? We can divide distance infinetelly. (sounds like zeno :) ). What are your toughts about this? In summary, time as a physical entity does not exist, rather it is a means for comparing the duration of an event to the duration of another which is considered the reference standard.

I am not well enough informed to really reply, but since no one else has, I will make a few coments.

Some good mathematical physicists think it quite possible that both time and space come in discrete increments (obvioulsy very small). I have never heard of there being the exchange of some "timons" - this "exchange idea" is basically related to the need to have some idea as to how force can act at a distance (the exchange of "glueons" for the strong force acts etc.) Because time does not exert any force on anything, I doubt anyone is suggesting that time "acts" by exchange of timeons etc. (Time does not act - point I have been stressing and most seem to agree with. I.e. few now argue that time can do anything.)

Quantum physics identifies certain pairs of obserables which will produce different results if their order of application to the state function is exchanged. (They do not "commute" under the Hamiltonian in the jargon of QM.) Time and energy are such a pair. All such pairs are victums of the "uncertainity principle." That is, the error in the concurrent measurement has a minium product. Thus if you measure one member of the pair very accurately, you will quite uncertain about the other member of the pair.

I doubt if this is the basic pratical cause, but all atomic clocks take a lot more energy to measure time than my timex. If you want to measure a time interval that is very short, you will pay a large price in energy. I am just trying to give some ideas about this. I am not really well enough versed to say it accurately.

 

[reilly]

Billy T -- Bravo & thank you. However, I prefer to think of my remarks as bringing a different perspective to a very interesting and difficult topic, time. I'm a theoretical physicist, or was one, with a strong empirical bent. As I was taught, and taught, Special Relativity is highly operational, as in: time is what you measure with clocks, space is what you measure with measuring rods, and these are the tools with which you lay out a coordinate grid in inertial systems.

I'll cite p. 28 in Einstein's short book, Relativity (Crown Trade Paperbacks) in which he states:

"...we understand by the "time" of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation."

This approach provides the basis for physicist's time -- in inertial frames -- and is widely accepted in the mainstream physics community.

Your more detailed explanation of the math is, I think, basically correct, particularly your use of infitesimals, or really small intervals.

When you get to strong gravitational fields with gradients sharp enough to shred any clock, or space-time foams and whatever, time becomes much more problematical. Another weakness, is that in QM we don't typically treat time as an operator, which creates a distinction between space and time, which seems contrary to SR.

Interesting topic, and very interesting thoughts on your part.


Reilly

 

[Billy T]

Billy T -- Bravo & thank you. However, I prefer to think of my remarks as bringing a different perspective to a very interesting and difficult topic, time. I'm a theoretical physicist, or was one, with a strong empirical bent. As I was taught, and taught, Special Relativity is highly operational, as in: time is what you measure with clocks, space is what you measure with measuring rods, and these are the tools with which you lay out a coordinate grid in inertial systems.

I'll cite p. 28 in Einstein's short book, Relativity (Crown Trade Paperbacks) in which he states:

"...we understand by the "time" of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation."

This approach provides the basis for physicist's time -- in inertial frames -- and is widely accepted in the mainstream physics community.

Your more detailed explanation of the math is, I think, basically correct, particularly your use of infitesimals, or really small intervals.

When you get to strong gravitational fields with gradients sharp enough to shred any clock, or space-time foams and whatever, time becomes much more problematical. Another weakness, is that in QM we don't typically treat time as an operator, which creates a distinction between space and time, which seems contrary to SR.

Interesting topic, and very interesting thoughts on your part.


Reilly

Thanks - I think we agree (and probably should given somewhat similar educations, although I would classify myself more as an experimental physicist than a theoretical one.) I have no problem accepting that Einstein said: "...we understand by the "time" of an event the reading (position of the hands) ..." and am pleased to note he has the "scare quotes" around time.

I think that one of the major reasons physics has transformed man's existence in 100 years much more than philosophy has in 1000, is it that it tends to be operational. QM is a good example. QM is a detailed cook book about how to calculated. Unfortunately many people who have never done any of the calculation recipes, think it is saying something about how the universe is. "photons are particles and waves" etc. QM is really quite neutral on ontological questions.

 

[Billy T]

Ok Billy T, I agree with you, but we have a problem. What is the alternative?

How would you synchronize sequences of events, motion, forces, to each other?

Lets start with classical physics. If my average speed was 20 miles per hour and I traveled 200 miles, then the time was 10 hours. This is well understood. However let's say my position simply changed - I was going on a plane tangent to the Earth (for example), and my path was a nonlinear function. I had beginning (x,y,z) and end (x',y',z'). The distance is 200 miles. sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2) = 200. This is all fine and neat. No time so far. The problem arises when another individual, call it hexnorc takes off from point (x',y',z') at same time as I am and travels in same direction as me. Somewhere along the function we meet - how do I find where? What if his speed is not 20? What if he stops and goes for unknown duration of time - I mean sure you can say but I just kept going and you can plot this and the point of collision will keep changing, and so on. But how do I do this without time?

I won't do specal cases very often (because I have done the general case) but this once I will oblige you:

C's speed is Cs(t) and hexnorc's speed is Hs(t). I do not know how to make intergral signs here so I will use II and if I mean the definite integral from a to b I will indicate this by aIIb ok?

C's location as a function of time is Cx(t) = 0IIt Cs(t)dt and your inverse function that tells when (what time T) C is at x where 0<= x <=200 is Tc(x) which is just the t vs x table you could construct by considering lots of different t in the first given intergral equation for Cx(t). Very important to note that once any value for t has been placed in this interal, what results is a distance, not a time. (time has been integrated over or out.)

I do the same to construct table for Th(x). Now I fold both the tables so that the T index column can not even be seen! (It really is only an index, not needed.) You may have passed each other several times. If, for example, the 27 and 732 entries in the h and c "x tables" are the same value for hx and cx, then those are the two locations where you passed. Your example was actually quite easy as time integrates out.

I don't like to mention it, as you may take it as some indication that time is real, not just a parameter, but you could know when you passed as follows: Unfold the either table so the "T index column" is visible again and interpret T as time shown on your clock. You could also get it by setting equal: oIIt Cs(t)dt = 0IIt Hs(t)dt but I don't suggest this as you will surely think it is "time t" rather than index T you find that produces the equality of Cx and Hx.

If something is shown to be true in generality, it is true of all particular cases. I won't do any more of specail cases. Of course, in pratice, if I want to synchronize the sound from a tape machine with the silent movie film, I will do the same as you. I used clocks to measure time all my life. that does not give it ontological status. - Just shows I am pratical.

 

[cronxeh]

so in essence this won't work for QM because of determinism (absence of)

 

[Billy T]

so in essence this won't work for QM because of determinism (absence of)

Not following you - what won't work?

 

[K.J.Healey]

So you're basically saying you can eliminate time from any equation describing an event, but you cannot derive equations describing events without using time?

Please do the same case you just did without using any form of time. At all. If it doesn't exist I want to see something completed without its use.

 

[Lucretius]

I'm new to these forums and by NO means any expert in anything like this (but I desire to understand!). I'm only in high school pre-calculus so don't expect me to understand the mathematical aspect of things…

I've heard that change can take place in the absence of time, something called presymplectic mechanics…is this what you are suggesting? I've been trying to make sense of "state evolution" in the absence of time, but so far I am at a loss.

 

[Billy T]

So you're basically saying you can eliminate time from any equation describing an event, but you cannot derive equations describing events without using time?

Please do the same case you just did without using any form of time. At all. If it doesn't exist I want to see something completed without its use.

No, I am not saying that it is impossible to develop physics (derive the equations) without reference to time, but as said earlier, I have shown time is not required for description of anything in universe. This does not mean that all physics has been developed without reference to time, only that in principle it could have been.

Some branches of physics, for example geometric optics, seldom if ever make any reference to time. You may even be familiar with fact that "Energy Conservation" is a more powerful and convenient means for calculating how high a rock thrown up in a gravity field will go than integrating the retarding force of gravity (-mg) acting on it as a function of time.

More generally, the motion and path of a particle (or rock etc.) actually takes does not need to be computed from F=ma, but I admit it usualy is. Back in 1824, Hamilton developed the "action principle." Feyman did much the same thing more recently with his "Feyman diagrams." There is also "Lagrangian mechanics" and "virtual displacements." In all of these approches to deriving the equations of motion, formulating physics, etc. time plays a minor if any role. That is, one does not use instanteous concepts like momentum and local current forces of the instant to see how the rock or particle will be moving "at the next instant of time" given how it is moving "now." Instead one evaluates certain quantities "over all possible paths" and the actual path realized by nature is the one which produces a stationary value for the quanity, usually a minium.

I am not going to try to derive all physics or even do an ill defined problem with any of these sophisticated methods for you. I do want you to know that in some cases it is the only way that works. (In quantum physics the "F=ma" approach fails because the particle may not have any defined location.) Hamilton's approach is the foundations of quantum mechanics. This is not the place to teach you about these things, and I am growing rusty with the use of these powerful tools that ignore the step by step evolution of the system "in time." Get a graduate level book on mechanics, especially one that is really a trying to lay the classical foundations (mathematical tools) required for quantum mechanics.
,

 

[Billy T]

I'm new to these forums and by NO means any expert in anything like this (but I desire to understand!). I'm only in high school pre-calculus so don't expect me to understand the mathematical aspect of things…

I've heard that change can take place in the absence of time, something called presymplectic mechanics…is this what you are suggesting? I've been trying to make sense of "state evolution" in the absence of time, but so far I am at a loss.

Welcome. Don't try too hard to understand things without time. Humans are not wired up to do it any other way. When you have progresses into areas that defy human understanding, like quantum mechanics, you will understand how important a role math plays in descriptions and in prediction of results.

I wrote a book, called Dark Visitor for young people like you. I am concerned that the jobs available to my grandchildren with be only "local jobs" that can not be exported (like selling fast food or cutting someone's hair) and wanted to attract more student to some of the harder science areas that the future of the western world depends upon. Technological leadership has already been lost to Asia. You will live to see scientific leadership lost also unless there is a big change in attitudes in the West.

Because it is designed to attract people not currently interested in science, all the science is hidden in a scary story of an approaching cosmic disaster. - which might be really coming and we would not yet know. Please visit www.DarkVisitor.com where you will learn how to read book for free, get a list of all the physics that is hidden in it, etc.

 

[rvolt24]

i'm no mensa, but...

i'm no genius, but maybe that's why it's so obvious to me...

time (and space) are constructs of the mind... they are NOT REAL!... face facts, people... if they were real, we could determine ways to alter them... energy, we can alter... matter; alter... we cannot alter time or space... despite what Star Trek would tell you...

okay... here's the philosophical part... but it involves some belief that physics works... we observe the world... we use five senses (+/-)... but what ACTUALLY HAPPENS?... say it with me now, "Energy Transfer"... that's all... light is emitted... it focuses through our eye onto rods and cones (whatever)... an ELECTRICAL SIGNAL is sent to the brain... same thing happens with touch, taste, smell, et cetera... this signal is processed and catalogued...

space and time are our PERCEPTIONS of transferred energy... we are translating the world around us into concepts...

now, again, I'm no mathmetician, logictician, or a very good speller ... but i know that the world can be described (albeit, very lengthy description) through the transference of energy only... we use time and space to separate the SEQUENCE of transference... i.e. ice cannot melt until the substance in contact with the ice increases to a temperature above that of the ice which can only happen when the substance in contact with that substance does likewise (or convection, radiation, et al.)...

two trains heading toward each other can be described as energy... transference from coal to heat; heat to pressure; pressure to kinetic energy; kinetic energy from gear to wheel; wheel to track; track to earth... the trains' "distance" from each other can be shown as molecular gravity systems... very weak at first, but with proper energy transference, these forces become very strong... eventually resulting in the rapid deformation of molecular bonds (e.g. crash, explosion, etc.)...

but what we perceive is two trains some "distance" apart and crashing some "time" in the future...

but this would not be the result except for the transference of energies which forced these two masses to interact... (read: the train rails, gravity and stupid engineers)...

it is only a sequence of energy transfers... since energy cannot be created or destroyed (give or take), the train crash cannot happen all at "once"... the energy must be transferred from place to place and form to form...

(pen)ultimately, time is just mental counting... how many seasons; how many sunrises; how many times has Orion chased his prey around the heavens... we count... then we divide... then we count again... hours, seconds, nanoseconds... ocilations of atoms inside atomic clocks... whatever... ... it's all a construct of our observations...

FINAL WORD:

the world can be described much easier and simply when we remove ONE factor... not time... not space... we must remove OBSERVATION... the first thing a scientist MUST do is remove himself from the equation... our preconceived notions of time and space make our notion of the world difficult and ponderous... find as much proof of energy transference as possible, and don't worry about how long it took or how far it went... find out where the energy came from and where it went... that's it... once we can do that, we will be as gods... omnicient and omnipresent...

thank you for your time and presence...

 

[rvolt24]

btw... Dark Visitor looks cool so far... I'm downloading the entire text and will read it later... but I'm definately interested... if it's as good as it looks, i'll buy the book...

yes, the internet is my library... read first... buy later... sorry... that's the way it is...

 

[K.J.Healey]

No, I am not saying that it is impossible to develop physics (derive the equations) without reference to time, but as said earlier, I have shown time is not required for description of anything in universe. This does not mean that all physics has been developed without reference to time, only that in principle it could have been.

Some branches of physics, for example geometric optics, seldom if ever make any reference to time. You may even be familiar with fact that "Energy Conservation" is a more powerful and convenient means for calculating how high a rock thrown up in a gravity field will go than integrating the retarding force of gravity (-mg) acting on it as a function of time.

More generally, the motion and path of a particle (or rock etc.) actually takes does not need to be computed from F=ma, but I admit it usualy is. Back in 1824, Hamilton developed the "action principle." Feyman did much the same thing more recently with his "Feyman diagrams." There is also "Lagrangian mechanics" and "virtual displacements." In all of these approches to deriving the equations of motion, formulating physics, etc. time plays a minor if any role. That is, one does not use instanteous concepts like momentum and local current forces of the instant to see how the rock or particle will be moving "at the next instant of time" given how it is moving "now." Instead one evaluates certain quantities "over all possible paths" and the actual path realized by nature is the one which produces a stationary value for the quanity, usually a minium.

I am not going to try to derive all physics or even do an ill defined problem with any of these sophisticated methods for you. I do want you to know that in some cases it is the only way that works. (In quantum physics the "F=ma" approach fails because the particle may not have any defined location.) Hamilton's approach is the foundations of quantum mechanics. This is not the place to teach you about these things, and I am growing rusty with the use of these powerful tools that ignore the step by step evolution of the system "in time." Get a graduate level book on mechanics, especially one that is really a trying to lay the classical foundations (mathematical tools) required for quantum mechanics.
,

I've read graduate level theoretical mechanics books, and I think I do recall time being mentioned once or twice... but seriously: I see what you're saying, that time is not necessary to describe the universe in a static frame.

But about the pathing...
You can describe the "future" by an infinite amount of paths, each with a finite probability of occurring. The example of this is object at A, then object at B, how did it get there? And you can draw all the possible paths and find which one the physical laws of nature would choose, thus collapsing a system of probabilities to one unique possibility, or "future".
Unfortunately this model doesn't leave a way of predicting the future. You cannot say the next position of an object that is going from A to some unknow. You don't have momentum, velocity, kinetic energy, or many other properties to work with because they cannot be defined without time. So you have no past information, because there was no past. Hence, there is no physical way to collapse the probability function of which path it will take, since there is no known upper limit. See what I'm saying?
I'm sure everyone has thought about a deterministic universe that doesn't need time at least once in their lives.
The fact that you acknowledge that an object can even MOVE means there must be time. And by time I solely mean a METRIC of a dimension.
Thats all time is, a measure.

 

[rvolt24]

. . . you can draw all the possible paths and find which one the physical laws of nature would choose, thus collapsing a system of probabilities to one unique possibility, or "future".
Unfortunately this model doesn't leave a way of predicting the future.

i don't want to sound rude, but do you get hit by falling objects a lot?... you intuitivly know the future path of many objects... can't one determine the forces acting on an system and determine to a high degree of accuracy future trends?... i know on a micro scale, this is difficult due to the miniscule quantities of energy required for high effect, but that is a problem of detection and quantifying... in the macro, we do this everyday... you drive a car, don't you?... did you check the weather this morning?... aren't there astrologers tracking and predicting the movement of celestial objects?... we used these methods to land an unmanned craft on Mars, right?... (it took us a few tries, true)...

You cannot say the next position of an object that is going from A to some unknow[n]. You don't have momentum, velocity, kinetic energy, or many other properties to work with because they cannot be defined without time.

sure you can... energy transference... we use the notion of "time" to describe the sequence of transference... the energy does not require time; just we do... "time" is just our way of making a cumbersome mathmatical series a simple counting proceedure...

So you have no past information, because there was no past.

what is past but the remembering of energy states?...

I'm sure everyone has thought about a deterministic universe that doesn't need time at least once in their lives.

sure... and, in many ways, it is... if we allow it... research the butterfly effect... though it sounds silly on the surface, just think about what would happen if (theoretically) a series of energy transfers as large as a hurricane began or ended due to the smallest beginning... just think about the beginnings of a nuclear bomb... we may have some limited control of forces, but once released, the universe is DEFINITLY deterministic...

The fact that you acknowledge that an object can even MOVE means there must be time. And by time I solely mean a METRIC of a dimension.

define movement without using time... you can't do it unless you also don't use space... but you can still define movement through a series of energy transfers... define a system based on nothing else, and it is still definable...

Thats all time is, a measure.

no... a measure is a quanification of energy... just as there is no "weight", only mass in gravity... two energies in a function... (actually several energies as gravity is relative to TWO or more energies... but unlike time, gravity still exists as a quanifiable energy of a sole object)... time is not a measure... it is a memory... it is a prediction of probability... it is a simplification of a complex system... it is a construct... use it all you wish, but wishing does not make it so...

 

[Billy T]

...Unfortunately this model doesn't leave a way of predicting the future. You cannot say the next position of an object that is going from A to some unknow. You don't have momentum, velocity, kinetic energy, or many other properties to work with because they cannot be defined without time. So you have no past information, because there was no past. Hence, there is no physical way to collapse the probability function of which path it will take, since there is no known upper limit. See what I'm saying?...The fact that you acknowledge that an object can even MOVE means there must be time. And by time I solely mean a METRIC of a dimension. Thats all time is, a measure.

Fact that can't predict the future is not much of a problem for me. I will even go so far as to agree that a lot of things that seem to require time (your "momentum, velocity, kinetic energy" etc.) even "change in general" are damn usefull ways to understand things. You speak of the "probability function" - not sure you are referring to the state function of quantum mechanics, but being in a generous mood at the "moment" I will assume you are and even grant that QM's equations are time based and strictly deterministic in their evolution with time ("equations", not the observational results predicted.) I will however, again note that I have little problem with the idea that the separation between two events can be measured by clocks etc. BUT my clock (in my inertial frame) gives it as 5 seconds and yours gives it as 10. The very fact that the metric between these two events can have any value you like should at least make you think that perhaps it is not anything real, but just that - a convenient metric.

 

[K.J.Healey]

i don't want to sound rude, but do you get hit by falling objects a lot?... you intuitivly know the future path of many objects... can't one determine the forces acting on an system and determine to a high degree of accuracy future trends?... i know on a micro scale, this is difficult due to the miniscule quantities of energy required for high effect, but that is a problem of detection and quantifying... in the macro, we do this everyday... you drive a car, don't you?... did you check the weather this morning?... aren't there astrologers tracking and predicting the movement of celestial objects?... we used these methods to land an unmanned craft on Mars, right?... (it took us a few tries, true)...

I'm not dumb, of course you can know the future of many objects, so long as you use time to describe the system. How do you define Force and momentum in a system where time does not exist? There is no movement, in the classical sense, of celestial objects, if you follow the original post. "Time doesn't exist" so please redefine momentum other than p=d(m*x)/dt without the time.

You see what I'm saying? I don't believe this nonesense really.

sure you can... energy transference... we use the notion of "time" to describe the sequence of transference... the energy does not require time; just we do... "time" is just our way of making a cumbersome mathmatical series a simple counting proceedure...

the energy doesn't require time, but a CHANGE in energy does, doesn't it?

what is past but the remembering of energy states?...

right, but how can you remember if there is no time? How do you label a previous energy state? If you created a sequence of energy states, and their change, would that not then just be re-labeling time?

sure... and, in many ways, it is... if we allow it... research the butterfly effect... though it sounds silly on the surface, just think about what would happen if (theoretically) a series of energy transfers as large as a hurricane began or ended due to the smallest beginning... just think about the beginnings of a nuclear bomb... we may have some limited control of forces, but once released, the universe is DEFINITLY deterministic...

Hmm, maybe my definition of deterministic is misconstrued. I thought that in a deterministic universe, you could look at a system and its properties and determine where its headed. I thought this is wrong because the act of looking at a system changes its properties? So you could never gain an initial value while retaining the properties of the system.

define movement without using time... you can't do it unless you also don't use space... but you can still define movement through a series of energy transfers... define a system based on nothing else, and it is still definable...

Thats the point i was trying to make. You can't have movement without time. I was never agreeing with the origina post if that's what you thought, I just merely understand where he's coming from and am trying to gain insight into that way of thinking in order to help test the theory.
Isnt the fact that there's a series of energy xfers mean time? Its just labeled "index n in the series" rather than "second n in time"

no... a measure is a quanification of energy... just as there is no "weight", only mass in gravity... two energies in a function... (actually several energies as gravity is relative to TWO or more energies... but unlike time, gravity still exists as a quanifiable energy of a sole object)... time is not a measure... it is a memory... it is a prediction of probability... it is a simplification of a complex system... it is a construct... use it all you wish, but wishing does not make it so...

So you can't measure distances in spatial dimensions because there is no energy associated with those distances? I don't understand that.

I understand time that time is a prediction of probability, and its just something we use to describe our physical model of the universe. But than what isnt? What is momentum, what is energy, what is mass, if not some arbitrary label to some other physical process. I know that we can ssign properties left and right, but my problem is I can't see describing the universe as a whole, in its all complete possibilities, without using time. Time is the measure of spatial change, that's how i see it. Its just used to label the occurance of events.

I thought also that QT sort of clears away the notion of a deterministic universe, and puts forth the idea of a probabilistic universe.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Fact that can't predict the future is not much of a problem for me. I will even go so far as to agree that a lot of things that seem to require time (your "momentum, velocity, kinetic energy" etc.) even "change in general" are damn usefull ways to understand things. You speak of the "probability function" - not sure you are referring to the state function of quantum mechanics, but being in a generous mood at the "moment" I will assume you are and even grant that QM's equations are time based and strictly deterministic in their evolution with time ("equations", not the observational results predicted.) I will however, again note that I have little problem with the idea that the separation between two events can be measured by clocks etc. BUT my clock (in my inertial frame) gives it as 5 seconds and yours gives it as 10. The very fact that the metric between these two events can have any value you like should at least make you think that perhaps it is not anything real, but just that - a convenient metric.

Thats what I am trying to say. Time isn't some dimension we have control over, its merely a metric for indexing the order of events. I won't go as far to say its man-made, but ANY observation from ANYTHING requires it to describe the events. See how I said observation, I don't mean things can't happen without time, just that they cannot be observed. Animals have feelings of time passing as well, but they don't undertand it. Its still only a metric, but what isnt?

And yes, I was speaking in pseudo-QM terms, and there are the very very basic time independent equations that are based on energy and a spatial dimension, and you can determine the probabilities of location (quantum well).

 

[learningphysics]

define movement without using time... you can't do it unless you also don't use space... but you can still define movement through a series of energy transfers... define a system based on nothing else, and it is still definable...

Please give an example of the above without reference to time.

What kind of "series of energy transfers"? If there is no time... there is no ordering to this series. How do you get the first, second, or last in the series without using time?

 

[Lucretius]

Anyone here read stuff on time by Carlo Rovelli?

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

Go to that page and download his PDF called "Time". For some reason "Presymplectic Mechanics" does not seem to work on my computer very well.

 

[rvolt24]

god i love scientific philosophy

I'm not dumb,

of course, i did not mean to imply such... your very presence here indicates a vital mind...

right, but how can you remember if there is no time?

what is memory?... aren't these electrical impulses which we relate as sight and sound (etc.) transmitted to our cerebellum and stored as "memory"?... memory is just a construct, too... we index these electrical pulses and use other pulses to read them... I/O just like a computer...

Its just labeled "index n in the series" rather than "second n in time"

EXACTLY!... and space is "unit n in distance" instead of "potential energy differential matrix of molecular masses"... let's get real here... does anyone still believe matter is solid?... it's energy in high valence bonds with other energies (string theory notwithstanding)...

So you can't measure distances in spatial dimensions because there is no energy associated with those distances? I don't understand that.

what is distance?... there are energies which keep all objects apart as well as energies which bring them together... distance is just our construct for dealing with these concepts... remove our perception and all becomes energy transfers...


:shy: listen... i know this is a difficult concept... humans have relied on vision and hearing and feeling and tasting and smelling for so long that we have a difficult time removing these things from any equation... and the truth be told, it IS much easier to use space and time to describe things... you can't tell someone who is blind what "Red" is... you will have to tell them the properties of the color... wavelength and such... differences between red light and blue light (or microwaves or infrared)... "Red" is a construct... but it is a simple way to describe an apple's skin... is water really "Wet" or are the particles formed in such a way as to attach loosely to other materials, but not have enough viscosity to leave a thick film... once you accept that all is energy, losing time and space is so simple... trust me... would i lie to you?

 

[rvolt24]

reference...

Please give an example of the above without reference to time.

What kind of "series of energy transfers"? If there is no time... there is no ordering to this series. How do you get the first, second, or last in the series without using time?

the problem with a reference is that we need a COMMON reference... right now, your reference requires (by definition) space and time... let me see if i can explain a larger concept which may be helpful...

what is a year without time?... the time-based definition is "the quantity of time required for one orbit of Earth around the Sun" (or something similar)... but what is really happening?... the Earth (mass-1) has gravity (force-1) pulling it toward the Sun (mass-2)... centripetal force (force-2) roughly perpendicular to force-1 is also being applied to mass-1... the tilt of mass-1's axis provides a viewer on mass-1's surface to see mass-2... as these forces act upon mass-1, the viewer would observe mass-2 move from an apex (summer solstice) to a nadir (winter solstice)... observations would show that this replicates a slightly modified sine wave... one year is one full cycle of this wave... mass does not require time to exist... yet many would say that, by definition, a force has a time component... not so... break it down into energy transference... voltage, if you will... potential energy and kinetic energy... force-1 is potential... force-2; kinetic...

but the important factor is that time; that one year; is not a measurement of any actual thing... it is a constructed reference of predicatable events... we can calculate months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds, etc. from these common references... there are whole schools of science dedicated to defining time... vibrations of cesium atoms... it's still just counting cycles of energy transfers...

again... use time and space as common reference points... common language... but don't for one "second" think it's real...

 

[moving finger]

the important factor is that time; that one year; is not a measurement of any actual thing... it is a constructed reference of predicatable events... we can calculate months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds, etc. from these common references... there are whole schools of science dedicated to defining time... vibrations of cesium atoms... it's still just counting cycles of energy transfers...

again... use time and space as common reference points... common language... but don't for one "second" think it's real...

What we are suggesting here is that time can be thought of as simply a human construct which enables us to visualise causation and the ordering of events. I don't think rvolt24 is suggesting that causation is an illusion, or that the ordering of events is an illusion (please correct me if I am wrong), but that what we humans call time is simply an internalised concept manufactured to help us to understand the causation and ordering we observe around us.

A suggestion : The same argument can be applied to space, to show that space does not really exist in the same way that time does not exist. What is space but an ordering of entities in relation to each other. There is a telephone on my desk and there is a stapler on my desk, the way they stand in relation to each is an ordering in something that we call space, but take away all objects and can we say that this space still exists? No, space is simply a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of objects "in" space. In the same way, time is a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of events "in" time.

MF

 

[Billy T]

What we are suggesting here is that time can be thought of as simply a human construct which enables us to visualise causation and the ordering of events. I don't think rvolt24 is suggesting that causation is an illusion, or that the ordering of events is an illusion (please correct me if I am wrong), but that what we humans call time is simply an internalised concept manufactured to help us to understand the causation and ordering we observe around us.

A suggestion : The same argument can be applied to space, to show that space does not really exist in the same way that time does not exist. What is space but an ordering of entities in relation to each other. There is a telephone on my desk and there is a stapler on my desk, the way they stand in relation to each is an ordering in something that we call space, but take away all objects and can we say that this space still exists? No, space is simply a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of objects "in" space. In the same way, time is a human construct that we use to describe the relative arrangements of events "in" time.

MF

Have not been very active here of late, but just wanted to say "Well done/ Well stated."

I agree with you on space also, but have been avoiding saying it, until "now" as unlike time, which is unique parameter I can eliminated from all descriptions of the universe (Math of post one as later refined under pressure, especially from Reilly) I can not mathematical eliminate the spatial coordinates/ parameters from all descriptions of the universe.

I have already noted, but it won't hurt to repeat, that anyone who is confident in the ontological status of either space or time ought to be at least a little bothered by facts (1) any two events can be separated by any number of seconds you like and (2)any two objects can have various number of meters separating them as you like. Both (1) & (2) "adjustments" just require choosing the frame you want to view them from.

 

[learningphysics]

What we are suggesting here is that time can be thought of as simply a human construct which enables us to visualise causation and the ordering of events.

Does anyone mean anything else by time other than the "ordering of events". This is what I mean by time. This is as far as I know what everyone means by time. If the ordering is not an illusion, then time is not an illusion.

What exactly is the construct you are referring to? Is the ordering a human construct?

 

[moving finger]

Does anyone mean anything else by time other than the "ordering of events". This is what I mean by time. This is as far as I know what everyone means by time. If the ordering is not an illusion, then time is not an illusion.

What exactly is the construct you are referring to? Is the ordering a human construct?

I think the point that is being made is that time is nothing more nor less than the ordering of events. There is no such thing as "time" in itself, and we should not think of events being ordered "in time", rather the ordering of events is what defines time. Take away the events, and time vanishes too.

The same applies to space.

All we are saying is that there is no basis for the Newtonian view that "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration"

Nobody is suggesting that the ordering is an illusion. But if we think that there is some fundamental reality to the thing we call time which is above and beyond the ordering of events, that is the illusion.

To summarise : If your point is that time does not exist in the absence of events, and that space. does not exist in the absence of objects, then we agree 100%

 

[moving finger]

Does anyone mean anything else by time other than the "ordering of events". This is what I mean by time. This is as far as I know what everyone means by time. If the ordering is not an illusion, then time is not an illusion.

What exactly is the construct you are referring to? Is the ordering a human construct?

I think the point that is being made is that time is nothing more nor less than the ordering of events. There is no such thing as "time" in itself, and we should not think of events being ordered "in time", rather the ordering of events is what defines time. Take away the events, and time vanishes too.

The same applies to space.

Nobody is suggesting (I believe) that ordering of events is an illusion. What is being suggested is that there is nothing more than "ordering of events". Adding the concept of time doesn't actually add anything to our understanding (in fact introducing the concept of time can cloud our understanding because there is then a tendency for some people to think of time as a kind of pre-existing backdrop against which ordered events happen, and it leads to misconceptions like the flow of time etc).

All we are saying is that there is no basis for the Newtonian view that "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration"

To summarise : If your point is that time does not exist in the absence of events, and that space. does not exist in the absence of objects, then we agree 100%