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

[Tournesol]

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.

Anyone who believes that neither space nor time exists at all should be bothered by the fact that combined space-time intervals are not dependent on
the choice of reference frame.

 

[Tournesol]

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%

OK, sio space and time are relative and not Newtonian, as everybody knows.
Why should that be paraphrased as "space and time do't exist" ?

 

[learningphysics]

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%

Ok. That's cool.

 

[Billy T]

Anyone who believes that neither space nor time exists at all should be bothered by the fact that combined space-time intervals are not dependent on the choice of reference frame.

There are lots of constructed constants. One of the most commonly use is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. If we, who question the ontological status of time, should be worried by the constancy of some construct you can make using space and time parameters or coordinates (don't care too much about the name), then I guess we should be equally worried by the constancy of the ratio of the value you can construct from two parameter of the circle. (3.1419...)

 

[Tournesol]

Of course I was talking about invariant spacetime intervals, not mathematical constants.

 

[rvolt24]

i hate to stir a hornet's nest, but...

guys, i KNOW time and space does not exist... but i am not qualified to give a mathmatical proof... maybe you can help me out...

IF:
e=mc^2

THEN:
Joules=kg*((3*10^8)*m/s)^2
J=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/s^2
s^2=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/J
s=sqrt(kg/J)*m*(3*10^8)

****excuse any mathmatical errors... the theory should work independently****

THEREFORE:
AS: m=0::s=0
AS: kg=0::s=0
AS: J approaches 0 :: s approaches infinity
AS: J approaches infinity :: s approaches 0

IF:
time (s) exists and space (m) exists

IF:
matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed

THEREFORE:
we can surmise, in an finite universe (finite quantity of mass-energy[sqrt(kg/J)]), there is a finite quantity of time...

THEREFORE:
finite space

THEREFORE:
at "Time-Zero" (bigbang theory) there was a ratio of kg/J where kg approximated 0 and J approximated the highest finite quantity of energy possible...

THEREFORE:
at "Time-End" the ratio turns around to kg approximates the highest finite quantity and J approximates 0...

*************************
also... does this mean that a proton, accelerated to the speed of light, becomes pure energy?... does this mean that light, stripped of it's speed, becomes mass?...

then what is a particle which moves half the speed of light?... what moves twice the speed of light?...
*************************

awfully complicated... but... what if time and space do not exist?... then that formula would be reduced to the following:

e=mK

WHEREAS:
K=universal constant (9*10^16)

THERFORE:
J=kg*K

IF:
kg=1

THEN:
J=1*K=(9*10^16)

THEREFORE:
90 quadrillion joules of energy are contained in one kilogram of mass... as the amount of mass approaches zero, the amount of energy approaches zero... DUH!... there is no need to involve time at all... one proton (mass 1.627*10^-27) contains 1.5048*10^-10 joules of energy...

in a nuclear fusion, suposedly 7% of mass is converted to energy... the two protons have less mass together than appart... energy is released...

space and time need not apply...

 

[moving finger]

guys, i KNOW time and space does not exist... but i am not qualified to give a mathmatical proof... maybe you can help me out...

IF:
1) e=mc^2

THEN:
2) Joules=kg*((3*10^8)*m/s)^2
3) J=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/s^2
4) s^2=kg*(9*10^16)*m^2/J
5) s=sqrt(kg/J)*m*(3*10^8)

****excuse any mathmatical errors... the theory should work independently****

THEREFORE:
AS: m=0::s=0
AS: kg=0::s=0
AS: J approaches 0 :: s approaches infinity
AS: J approaches infinity :: s approaches 0

Excuse me if I paraphrase your argument, I have also numbered your relationships to help in clarification. I have not checked whether your stated relationships are correct, I take them at face value.

What you are saying is that since s is inversely proportional to J (equation (5)), then s necessarily tends to infinity as J tends to zero. This does not follow, since there are other terms in your relationship (5) (eg kg) which may also vary. If kg tends to zero as J tends to zero then s is indeterminate (from equation (4) or (5)); if kg tends to infinity as J tends to infinity then s also is indeterminate (from equation (4) or (5)).

IF:
time (s) exists and space (m) exists

IF:
matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed

THEREFORE:
we can surmise, in an finite universe (finite quantity of mass-energy[sqrt(kg/J)]), there is a finite quantity of time...

I do not see why this necessarily follows? Can you explain?

THEREFORE:
finite space

THEREFORE:
at "Time-Zero" (bigbang theory) there was a ratio of kg/J where kg approximated 0 and J approximated the highest finite quantity of energy possible...

Nope. Energy has an equivalent mass, this is the whole point of the e=mc^2 relationship. Any non-zero quantity of energy will have an equivalent non-zero mass, and vice versa.

also... does this mean that a proton, accelerated to the speed of light, becomes pure energy?... does this mean that light, stripped of it's speed, becomes mass?...

Again, no. You are I think confusing the e=mc^2 relationship as meaning that an entity can have only mass or energy but not both. What the relationship is actually telling us is that energy and mass are equivalent, that all entities with non-zero mass or energy have both mass and energy through that relationship.

MF

 

[moving finger]

OK, sio space and time are relative and not Newtonian, as everybody knows.
Why should that be paraphrased as "space and time do't exist" ?

Let us look at the opposite argument. Can we defend the statement "space and time do exist"?

What do we mean by "exist"? Can anyone tell me? My suggestion would be that if one cannot define exactly what one means by the phrase "space and time exist" then one has no right using the phrase.

My whole point is that the property of "existence" is bestowed upon the human concept of time only by virtue of the ordered relationship of events; in the absence of such events then time has no meaning and does not exist. In other words, time is not some pre-existing entity against which events are measured, time is simply an emergent property of a universe which contains ordered events.

The same argument can be applied to space.

In this sense, time is like the colour red (and other qualia!). The human sensation of the colour red does not have any independent "existence", it is simply a human construct which we apply to allow us to discriminate between certain wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum. red is not something intrinsic in the universe which has any kind of independent existence, it is an emergent property which depends on the pre-existence of a visible spectrum (and other things). Take away the visible spectrum, and red has no meaning and does not exist.

MF

 

[Tournesol]

My whole point is that the property of "existence" is bestowed upon the human concept of time only by virtue of the ordered relationship of events; in the absence of such events then time has no meaning and does not exist. In other words, time is not some pre-existing entity against which events are measured, time is simply an emergent property of a universe which contains ordered events.

It maybe the case that you can't have time without events; it might equally
be the case that you can't have events without time. If you are going
to object to things on the basis of their being emergent or secondary,
you need to specify what is primary.

In any case, we do not usually equate "not fundamental" with non-existent;
chairs depend on wood and carpenters, but we do not usually class them
as non-existent.

In this sense, time is like the colour red (and other qualia!). The human sensation of the colour red does not have any independent "existence", it is simply a human construct which we apply to allow us to discriminate between certain wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum. red is not something intrinsic in the universe which has any kind of independent existence, it is an emergent property which depends on the pre-existence of a visible spectrum (and other things). Take away the visible spectrum, and red has no meaning and does not exist.

But the visisble spectrum depends on photons, which depend on electromagnetism... what is primary here ?

 

[moving finger]

But the visisble spectrum depends on photons, which depend on electromagnetism... what is primary here ?

In most cases it is fairly easy to identify a hierarchy of meaning or existence.
The concept "red" exists (as a neuro-physiological concept), but it depends on the prior existence of a number of things, such as photons with varying wavelengths and a perceptive consciousness to represent "red" internally. Take away photons, and "red" (as we understand it) no longer exists and has no meaning.

The same does not work the other way around. The existence of photons is not dependent on the prior existence of the concept "red". If perceptive consciousness did not exist, or we were conscious but all colour-blind, then the concept "red" would not exist; but photons would still exist.

MF

 

[Tournesol]

"It maybe the case that you can't have time without events; it might equally
be the case that you can't have events without time. If you are going
to object to things on the basis of their being emergent or secondary,
you need to specify what is primary"

So what makes events more primary than time ?

 

[rvolt24]

clarification

Excuse me if I paraphrase your argument, . . .

thank you for pointing out the logical errors of my equations... by attempting to prove the "time is real" theory, i wish to point out its flaws... i think it may have been misunderstood as to the intention of the "proof"... i should have said, "all other things being equal, energy (J) is inversely proportional to time (s)"... the point of which is an attempt to prove time (or space) as a thing on par with mass and energy... we can prove mass and energy exist, right?...

I do not see why this necessarily follows? Can you explain?

matter and energy cannot be destroyed (insofar as we know )... therefore, there is a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of energy; making the assumption that this is a finite universe... as mass is transformed into energy (i.e. sun) and energy is transformed into mass (i.e. black hole), there is a finite relationship between the quantity of each... doesn't it logically follow, if e=mc^2 is correct in its units, that there is finite time and finite space?... the only way to have infinite time is to have an infinite space... which, if infinite, we lose the whole point of time (or space) being similar to mass or energy... conundrum... again, time is not "real" as we define mass as "real"...

Energy has an equivalent mass, this is the whole point of the e=mc^2 relationship. Any non-zero quantity of energy will have an equivalent non-zero mass, and vice versa.

just noting that (according to the "time is real" thought) when the ratio of mass to energy is such that it is equivalent to 0, time is equivalent to 0... [#(kg)/infinity(J)*m(space)=0(time)]... and when the ratio of mass to energy is equivalent to infinity (#/0), time is equivalent to infinity... so, if time exists and is marching on relentlessly, on the whole of the universe, energy is being converted to mass... :zzz:
this is not what i am trying to prove... i am just stating that, if time exists as it has been defined, than this is the order of the universe according to e-mc^2...

Again, no. You are I think confusing the e=mc^2 relationship as meaning that an entity can have only mass or energy but not both. What the relationship is actually telling us is that energy and mass are equivalent, that all entities with non-zero mass or energy have both mass and energy through that relationship.

sorry again for the confusion... i was trying to point out the absurdity of the notion that time and space have anything at all to do with the relationship... mass IS energy... energy IS mass... "mass times the speed of light squared" is ridiculous even to einstein, but he had no other way of describing it to us... one Joule equals 1/9*10^-16 kg... or, better said, one kg contains 9*10^16 Joules of energy... in the fusion of hydrogen, which releases 7% mass as energy, one kg of hydrogen releases 6.3*10^15 Joules of energy; and leaves a mass of .93 kg of helium... time and space are not necessary for this relationship to work...
time and space do not exist as we define mass and energy to exist... the c^2 part of e=mc^2 is just a sufficiently large enough number to display the massive quantity of energy within what we see as matter...

 

[rvolt24]

Take away photons, and "red" (as we understand it) no longer exists and has no meaning.
. . .
If perceptive consciousness did not exist, or we were conscious but all colour-blind, then the concept "red" would not exist; but photons would still exist.

from reading your posts along this thread, i can see that we both believe the same thing in regards to time and space... our only differences come within our semantics of description...

 

[moving finger]

we can prove mass and energy exist, right?...

I'm not sure we can.
Mass is a concept that we use to allow us to mathematically describe (for example) the behaviour of matter in a gravitational field or an inertial frame of reference.
Energy similarly is a concept that we can use to describe (amongst other things) the static mass and dynamical behaviour of a body.
They exist as concepts. But do they exist in any other way?
What does a unit of "mass" look like? What does a unit of "energy" look like? We have no idea.

matter and energy cannot be destroyed... therefore, there is a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of energy

But perhaps they can be created. Quantum particles can be created spontaneously out of the vacuum; one theory is that the entire mass-energy of the universe arose this way. And the exponentially expanding universe with non-zero vacuum energy idea (which seems to be accepted) means that the total energy locked up in the vacuum will soon be increasing exponentially - where does all this energy come from?

making the assumption that this is a finite universe...

That's quite an assumption!

as mass is transformed into energy (i.e. sun) and energy is transformed into mass (i.e. black hole), there is a finite relationship between the quantity of each... doesn't it logically follow, if e=mc^2 is correct in its units, that there is finite time and finite space?...

I agree that our universe cannot be infinite in both space and time (see Olber's paradox), but that does not mean it cannot be infinite in space and finite in time.

the only way to have infinite time is to have an infinite space...

I don't see how this follows? Why could we not (in theory) have a model universe which has existed, and will exist, for infinite time but is finite in space?

Sorry, I got lost in the rest of your post...

MF

 

[rvolt24]

I'm not sure we can {define mass}.

by definition mass is the amount of matter (which, by definition, matter is anything with mass)... but for simplicity's sake, everyone can agree that there are things which are definable by their causation of observable results through the interaction with other things of similar nature... (i.e. objects bumping, light bending, etc.)... time is not definable in these terms as it is just an imagined demarkation of energy states and forces... matter/energy continue to exist and interact without observation...

Sorry, I got lost in the rest of your post...

quite understandable... I'm not sure i can help clarify it, either...

but here's the main thrust of my point...

"mass times the speed of light squared" is ridiculous even to einstein, but he had no other way of describing it to us... one kg contains 9*10^16 Joules of energy... in the fusion of hydrogen, which releases 7% mass as energy, one kg of hydrogen releases 6.3*10^15 Joules of energy; and leaves a mass of .93 kg of helium... time and space are not necessary for this relationship to work...
time and space do not exist as we define mass and energy to exist... the c^2 part of e=mc^2 is just a sufficiently large enough number to display the massive quantity of energy within what we see as matter...

"the speed of light squared" is just a sufficiently large constant which einstein used to keep this discussion from happening while he was around...
smoke and mirrors, baby!

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Before eisntein, amny people thought that time did not exist, that it was a human creation. But it's been 100 years since special relativity, and with it, the unification of spac and time (spacetime) and the naming of time as the 4rth dimension. It is an axiom that nearly all scientists agree with. we could say that it is a fact. But if some of you still ant to create threads 11 pages long about a theme that the cientific comunity has stopped to doupt since 100 years ago, you can do it if you want.

 

[rvolt24]

Before {einstein}, {many} people thought that time did not exist, that it was a human creation. But it's been 100 years since special relativity, and with it, the unification of {space} and time (spacetime) and the naming of time as the {4th} dimension. It is an axiom that nearly all scientists agree with. we could say that it is a fact. But if some of you still {want} to create threads 11 pages long about a theme that the {scientific} {community} has {stopped} to {doubt} since 100 years ago, you can do it if you want.

I: thank you for your permission...
II: einstein disbelieved in time...
III: just because the "scientific community" believes in something, that doesn't make it true...
III-A: it wasn't that long ago that they didn't believe in virii or hygiene in hospitals...
III-B: it was VERY recently that they believe everything is energy and that "solid" is a perception of how atoms in valence bonds react to one another when their relative electro-magnetic fields interact energetically...

so... please prove time... or allow us to discuss these things in a polite, theoretical, and philosophical manner... thanks for your input... :zzz:

 

[moving finger]

Sorry to correct you, rvolt24, but you misquoted me.

Of course we can "define" mass. I did not say that we cannot define mass.

I was referring to your earlier post where you said :

we can prove mass and energy exist, right?...

and I said :

I'm not sure we can.

(by implication - "I am not sure we can prove that mass and energy exist")

I can define anything I like. I can define a squirtle to be a red quark with the mass of a proton and charge +3, but that does not prove a squirtle "exists".

"Mass" is a concept that we have defined which allows us to make sense of things we measure, such as the weight of an object in a gravitational field, the inertia of an object, etc etc. But to say that mass "exists" (in absence of the weight, inertia etc that we measure) is a metaphysical leap into the dark equivalent to saying that time "exists" in the absence of events.

MF

If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things.
Rene Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637

 

[moving finger]

Before eisntein, amny people thought that time did not exist, that it was a human creation. But it's been 100 years since special relativity, and with it, the unification of spac and time (spacetime) and the naming of time as the 4rth dimension. It is an axiom that nearly all scientists agree with. we could say that it is a fact. But if some of you still ant to create threads 11 pages long about a theme that the cientific comunity has stopped to doupt since 100 years ago, you can do it if you want.

I agree with rvolt24, Einstein did not believe in time and space the same way that you seem to. The accepted paradigm before Einstein was based NOT on a denial of time, but on a notion of absolute time endorsed by Newton :

Newton : "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: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year."

And this is what Einstein had to say on the "reality" of time and space : "Neither the point in time at which an event takes place nor the point in space in which a thing takes place have any physical reality, but only the event itself, ... so that neither an absolute spatial relation nor an absolute temporal relation exists between two events, but only an absolute spatio-temporal relation. ... It is impossible to divide the four-dimensional continuum into a three-dimensional spatial continuum and a one-dimensional temporal continuum in any way that makes sense from the objective point of view."

and also from Einstein (talking about the death of a colleague) : "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

(my emphasis)

MF

The Moving Finger writes; and having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
The Rubôayôat of Omar Khayyôam, translated by Edward Fitzgerald (1953)

 

[rvolt24]

Sorry to correct you, rvolt24, but you misquoted me.

i stand corrected... you are absolutely correct...

 

[HallsofIvy]

It's amazing to me that this thread is still going on!

Would anyone mind if I point out that it is impossible to give a "math proof" of the "physical existence" of anything. The best one can do is show that a particular mathematical model is not representive of reality.

 

[Billy T]

It's amazing to me that this thread is still going on!

Would anyone mind if I point out that it is impossible to give a "math proof" of the "physical existence" of anything. The best one can do is show that a particular mathematical model is not representive of reality.

In earlier post I noted that the math proof only shows that it is possible to eliminate all reference to time in all descriptions of all details of the universe. Never claimed to show by math that time does not exist. The space available for titles does not permit one to be exact in the title.

 

[moving finger]

It's amazing to me that this thread is still going on!

Would anyone mind if I point out that it is impossible to give a "math proof" of the "physical existence" of anything. The best one can do is show that a particular mathematical model is not representive of reality.

hehehehe... yes I agree, HallsofIvy... and in light of this I am amazed that some people still insist that "time" is not simply a mental concept, but has some kind of real or absolute "existence"...

MF

 

[Tournesol]

Of course it is equally impossible to give a purely mathematical disproof of the actual
existence of something. Nonetheless, the conclusion has to be that time does not exist...and one thing keeps on happening after another, all the same.

 

[Billy T]

Your most recent post seems to reflect a slight change of heart, but perhaps I just do not understand it (or your earlier ones) relative to your post 111 which in part was:

...My oriignal metaphysical argument is a reductio:

1. something (eg a clock) can have contradictory properties at different times
-- eg it can display 1 o'clock and 12'o' clock.
2. If time doesn't exist, it [ the clock ] must have contradictory properties at the same time. [or atemporally, at no particular time ]
3. This cannot be , so , by reductio, time exists.

IOW

i) either time exists, or not.
ii) if not, things have contradictory properties
iii) so it exists.

Which is not circular. The existence of time is not assumed beyond the
non-existence of time -- it is just that out of the two assumptions, one leads
to contradiciton.

In fairness to you, I also noted while looking back at your old posts, that your in post 116, you had already pointed out some of the limitations of math proofs:

A purely mathematical proof cannot demonstrate anything (meta)phsycially by itself. There must be some means of bridging, or interpreting to (meta)physics.
You are implicitly appealing to some principle along the lines "if we can eliminate a variable from our equations, then what it represents does not
exist" .

in my eariler reply to his I noted that in addition to not being required for a discription of the universe, (the math proof) time also has the property that it (1) can't cause any thing and (2) as a consequence, can not be directly observed. It is these three reasons why I think it unlike to have any ontological status.

 

[lwymarie]

how to measure the 'speed' of time? time's speed, is it measured by itself?

speed=distance/time. then how to measure the 'speed' of time? how can we say 'my time is faster than your time', etc?

 

[HallsofIvy]

Well, since "speed" of anything is defined as the change in that quantity divided by the change in time, the speed of time is clearly "change in time"/"change in time" and so is 1!

 

[Starship]

I find the existence of space as illogical as the existence of a time dimension.

In the sense of quantum nonlocality and nonspatiality, space or distance is also abstract. The so-called superluminal objection is flawed in my opinion, because it assumes the physical existence of space. Particles do not exist in space, they just exist. There is no spooky action at a distance because there is no distance between particles. This is not the same as saying that the distance is zero; distance simply doesn't exist in nature: it's abstract. More precisely, it is the abstract vector difference between two positional properties.

Physical space is given as a collection of positions. The idea is that, in order for any physical entity or property to exist, it must exist at a specific position in space. But if a position is a physical entity that exists, it too, must exist at a specific position. In other words, if space exists, where is it? This leads to a tautology.

The most immediate consequence of nonspatiality is that all physical properties in the universe are absolute. The relative is abstract (in our minds) and is dependent on the absolute. The reason is that, since there is no space, all properties are intrinsic to (belong to) individual particles. They are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic. We've been told that the absolute does not exist and that only the relative exists. The truth is that the relative is abstract and only the absolute exists. So particles do not move from one location in space to another.

 

[McGyver]

You are close. Time would begin at the instant there were inception of all things. If existence ALWAYS was - then Time is mostly relevant measurements that define relationships, eg. length of events, light, sound, distance, particle make-up, eb and flow of (harmonics). Simply put, existence is interconnecting events. The deeper one looks, you begin viewing dimensions (including afterlife) and those dimensions again exists within Time. Math formulas have thus been created by humans to define the known relationships, and extrapolate end points which we assume, based upon proven formulas, to therefore exist. Bear in mind Time and Existance are ever-changing.

 

[Starship]

Space and time are abstract concepts. It does not exist in nature. In fact i don't believe relativity is a correct theory. The theory fails to explain why space and time unification is more important than mass, energy and work unification.

How is the physical connection between electricity and magnetism related to the connection between abstract concepts such as space and time?

 

[moving finger]

The theory fails to explain why space and time unification is more important than mass, energy and work unification.

I agree with the concept of work unification. Can I unify my job with someone else's job and take some time off?

MF


(ps - sorry, just a joke!)

 

[Doctordick]

Causality doesn't cause anything. But events cause other events, so
causality must exist ...in some sense.

I agree 100%. And my position is that causality exists as a mechanism to make our experiences easier to keep track of. And I will explain that position throughly if you have the patience to follow my reasoning.

I'm still reading your posts.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Well, quite. That is the traditional problem of time, causality etc -- how best to characterise them. Trying to dismiss them totally doesn't help because it doesn't work.

Absolutely correct! What I am trying to say is that you seem to recognize the problem but don't present a solution outside the common conclusions: i.e., presume that time is a real thing and not just a figment of your imagination.

Just reading your stuff!

Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Notes on Barbour's theory:

1. Removing causality pulls the rug from under scientific epistemology

2. It also pulls the rug from under the notion of a 'time capsule'. Memory is disntinguished from imagination by having a certain kind of causal history. In the absence of that criteron, what is to stop me saying that my dreams are a 'time capsule' of the universe next door.

3. The mysterious role of proability in the absence of anything actually happening.
Apparently, more Nows of higher probability are 'more likely to be experienced'. Is that an
Appeal to consciousnessas a god of the gaps?

I really think we need to talk!

Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Anyone who believes that neither space nor time exists at all should be bothered by the fact that combined space-time intervals are not dependent on
the choice of reference frame.

Now this depends very much on your definition of those reference frames. The reference frames themselves have characteristics which need to be established. Units of measure and methods of making measurements just to name two. Your phrase "the choice of reference frame" has been assumed to be limited to a very specific set of reference frames. You should read a little about Hamiltonian Mechanics; it might expand your view of the concept "reference frame".

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Ron]

Time does exist?

The argument as to whether or not time exists might be found at www.btinternet.com/~author.ron[/URL]

The paper, ‘The Nature and Cause of Time’, suggests that the spacetime model, although an excellent mathematical model for determining the position of any point or object in space and time, appears to be confusing our understanding about the real nature of time itself. The paper puts forward a hypothesis that assumes time and energy to be the same thing. As we know, energy is the source of all activities, therefore the cause of change, and as most can agree, change is a prime feature of passing time. Without energy, mass would be inert and changeless, which would mean the universe would be a pretty dead universe indeed.

As the eminent physicist, Paul Davies, stated in his book titled, ‘About Time’, ‘time and energy goes hand in hand – no energy, no time’. Now this gives a strong indication that there is a direct relationship between time and energy, and the above link agrees with Davies statement but takes it further by assuming that time and energy are in fact two features of the same thing.

The idea of ‘energy’ always relates to the capacity to do work, while ‘time’ usually refers to the passage of events that is measurable. When energy is exerted and work is done the consequence of that work is ‘change’, and a sequence of changes gives rise to the effect of passing time that has duration, which is measurable. And as a matter of interest the measuring system of time is energy also based. Both mechanical and electrical timepieces all need ‘energy’ in order to ‘do the work’ of measuring time.

In answer to the question, does time exist; it would seem it does, in the form of energy?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

hey Billy T, how long did it take you to prove that time doesn't exist?

 

[tino lin]

This idea of time do not exist/exist got me thinking about The Matrix.
My appology if this discussion has already been made since I did not have
time to read this whole thread.
Since it is hard to prove that time do not exist/exist in our world.
Let try to think of what kind of world that time DO exist?
My answer to this question (my answer may or may not make sense) would be the world like in The Matrix, where it is a simulated world tick by each CPU instruction, or actually CPU cycle by an oscillating crystal. Now this we can clearly say that time exist.
Is our world simularly created by a god of powerful mental or physical tools or was it just an accident? For the second case we cannot for sure say that time exist or not.

 

[Ron]

Is our world simularly created by a god of powerful mental or physical tools or was it just an accident? For the second case we cannot for sure say that time exist or not.

In the natural world time exists because of atomic oscillations, that is, because of the emission / absorption of quanta. This results in atomic change, where change creates the effect of passing time.

 

[tdunc]

I still remember the day I realized that "time" does not exsist. I thought I was a genius when I figured it out. But Its really very simple, everyone will at some point get it. Note though there is more than one definition and usage of the word time, like many words in the English language. Time as it is used in mathematics and as a measureing tool is real, nobody should argue that. Its the other definition of time the one that we are instinctivly born that goes with human perception that Billy T is talking about does not exsist. And its not so much that is does not exsist, its the understanding of what it is. Time is relative and independent. < Once you know exactly what this means, you will get it. Its also important to visualize on the atomic scale. Atoms in motion = relative time forward, Atoms not in motion = relative time stoped. Atoms slowed = relative time slowed (can relate to temperature). Our perception of those atoms in motion is time. Take any object and reduce it to its fundamental componets, atoms, atoms in motion.

Thats is all there is to it folks! 13 pages of what the hell you guys are talking about who knows, I am not going to read it.

(for those who don't know I keep a journal and going back you can read the day I discovered what time is, I also elaborate quite a bit on what I said above)

 

[Ron]

I still remember the day I realized that "time" does not exsist. I thought I was a genius when I figured it out. But Its really very simple, everyone will at some point get it. Note though there is more than one definition and usage of the word time, like many words in the English language. Time as it is used in mathematics and as a measureing tool is real, nobody should argue that. Its the other definition of time the one that we are instinctivly born that goes with human perception that Billy T is talking about does not exsist. And its not so much that is does not exsist, its the understanding of what it is. Time is relative and independent. < Once you know exactly what this means, you will get it. Its also important to visualize on the atomic scale. Atoms in motion = relative time forward, Atoms not in motion = relative time stoped. Atoms slowed = relative time slowed (can relate to temperature). Our perception of those atoms in motion is time. Take any object and reduce it to its fundamental componets, atoms, atoms in motion.

Thats is all there is to it folks! 13 pages of what the hell you guys are talking about who knows, I am not going to read it.

(for those who don't know I keep a journal and going back you can read the day I discovered what time is, I also elaborate quite a bit on what I said above)

Be careful when you consider yourself a genius, you might be taken for a crackpot. Einstein was classified as being a genius but he never, ever admitted it publicly. If you are a genius why are there so many spelling mistakes within your postings? A professional scientist would be put off by them and stop reading your ideas. I often rush through my writing and sometimes make spelling mistakes in the process, so I always use a spell-checker before posting. This is just a piece of advice so please don’t take this personally.

As for your remark that you will not be reading our postings, well that is your privilege, but by doing so you will be advertising your immaturity as well as missing out on some interesting counter arguments. That’s what this forum is here for, to ask questions, share ideas, and to offer counter arguments to any idea we oppose. Personally, I do not accept you view of time, but having said that I still find it interesting to read. Amongst professional scientists / philosophers and even undergraduates and post-graduates there are differing opinions. Some say time exists, others say it doesn’t, and because of that we discuss our differences with hopes of drawing up a common conclusion. We don’t get one scientist or undergraduate shutting the other out or say I refuse to read your work because it doesn’t agree with mine. That’s an unhealthy attitude that will grind progress to a halt. But, as I said, that’s your privilege. You will miss out on some healthy discussions by doing that.

As for my hypothesis that explains the nature and cause of time, I am not claiming my work is THE answer to time’s dilemma. It’s simply a logical deduction based on our current knowledge and understanding of physics that appears to give an answer to the problem of time. Professional and non-professional scientists have read my work with mixed feelings. Some have responded very positively by saying that my work appears to offer an interesting answer regarding the nature of time, while others have expressed some doubts. That’s how it is with research. A new hypothesis or theory is only acceptable as being a viable one through validating it through repeatable experimentation, which then becomes an accepted fact.

Personal Website: The Nature and Cause of Time.
www.btinternet.com/~author.ron[/URL]

 

[Solasis]

Aetherial Temporal

I don't have time to read the whole thread to see if this has been said already, and if it has, just ignore me, but Time is the medium through which change flows; I'm with Billy inasmuch that Time does not cause change; rather, time allows change to occur. It's like the ancient Aether through which matter flowed.

 

[tdunc]

You misunderstood the context in which I said I thought I was a genius. I'll tell you right now I'm not a genius. The more I know, the less I think I know. Understanding what time is, was a personal breakthrough if you will in understanding "how it all works" and I reasoned that the solution of "what is time?" is quite simple, and it is.

You say you do not accept my view of what time is...

Well Ron let me just reply to this. I read your article, nicely done, and I agree with it damn near word for word. You get it congrats, I mean you took it upon yourself to personally figure out what time is; that aside from what others think. Makes you wonder what we thought time was otherwise? I don't even remeber, its not important, what's important is that the question is answered, my personal curiosity has been satisfied, I have 'solved time' in my mind and have long since moved on to other questions; so you'll understand why I do not wish to read and ingage in a lengthy discussion about it. Change is a keyword indeed. So when you say that you do not agree with my view of what time is, you don't really mean it because you know time like I know time I just probably do not express my thoughts out as well as you do (in the past, I'm getting better as a writer) and felt it unnecessary to go into elaborate detail as you have done. But again I would like to comend you for your effort, and will recommend anyone to read it. I'd would even ask you to go write something on wikipedia under time or make changes where you feel necessary. Ya sure we could add more to it discuss it more, but again I personally just don't have the desire to do such, you'll have to excuss the way in which I entered this thread; I got an email link from this forum and it caught my eye with the amount of replies it had, not based on the fact I find the topic interesting anymore. I just don't see what there is so much to talk about... I guess I'll never know ;) Or I don't want to know, some people really get carried away. Keep things simple when the answer is simple is my moto.

 

[Ron]

Hello tdunc. Thank you for your kind reply. It's been a pleasure speaking with you.

 

[agnostictheist]

It seems to me, not that i have read the thread totally, that at the beg of this thread. Time is cusality, need it be so?

currently and i ask the physics mind people hear help me out or correct me if need be, time is defined to be the lenghts between points (however certian elements need to use our notion of time to formulate "qunatities", even "timeless descritpions" while themselfs require no need of time, what of the elements that are used?? .


When we talk of an event, assumingly in time, if such a case is true maybe time is not about just "change", or rather while chnage is a suffient condition of time, chnage is not nesscery for time. simlaiy motion is simply the characterisic descriptions of "interactions" of energy, or lack of exchange, both would still count as an event, an effect - but both would not be described as cause and effect, or T2 was caused by T1 in fact maybe we should talk about two sense of time, the tenseless, and "tenser" theories of time...in one Time merely stops all things happening at once, its treated merely has a demension! this needs not required a sense of chain of events, or causal relationship, rather the relations are referred via over-generalistions, based on induction.

But current theories seem to suggest when talking about time, motion etc such things are not absolute and for that matter the importance to things lies in relationships between points (which can differ, from oberver A to that of B, even those they are reffering to the same thing) not adding the concept of time to it, as it does not change the system. However even if time loses its importance or its centre stage that's no reason to assume time is an illusion rather it might bring back the question, what is time? or is there a different type of time. its been argued before that time is motion (but that solves nothing for motion is having different spatial dimensions at different times! - this is a function of/in? time, not time itself!), but if we can talk of things merely in "acts" or "events" and NOT case Cause and effect, rather merely action then it might suggest that time need not be "change", for there is no chnage in something going from state A to state A (the special relationship of to itself!), even those there is a state of affairs eg ( an effect). tenseless!

time as we know it, or rather infer it, dependent on lang, and a contigency in "reality".

 

[Ivegottheskill]

I don't think "Time" as a real, concrete and reliably measurable quantity exists. The theory I've read that seemed to make a lot of sense to me was that time is a "shadow" of motion (i.e. changes)

It could be suggested that evidence of this is that measure or perception of time changes with changing velocity (closer to light speed) and changing gravity (as in black holes). Both of which directly affect matter in the form of motion

 

[timestill]

This was meant for the top POST

The math that you worked out, I think that it can not be validated at the quantum level... especially in describing the spin proprieties of fermions...
I am not a pro but I also think that being that the arrow of time does not change it implies that it represents a strong argument on the reality of time as a dimension... Abstract constructs as light cones are another argument...

 

[cronodragon]

Do we notice time because of the repetive events? Would be notice time in a place where nothing happens twice? :/

 

[eNathan]

I don't think "Time" as a real, concrete and reliably measurable quantity exists. The theory I've read that seemed to make a lot of sense to me was that time is a "shadow" of motion (i.e. changes)

It could be suggested that evidence of this is that measure or perception of time changes with changing velocity (closer to light speed) and changing gravity (as in black holes). Both of which directly affect matter in the form of motion

So your saying that time is just the measurment of motion? Yes, I agree. Motion exists, and varies with respect to v. You can also call this a variation in the interval between two events (or motions).

 

[eNathan]

By the way, Ivegottheskill, you titled this thread with "Math proof". Can you demonstrate some mathematical proof therefore?

:)