Is Time an Illusion or a Fundamental Reality?

[BobG]

Hi russ!

But I can put a ruler in my pocket, and carry it around.

I can't put a second in my pocket.

(and if you find a way of doing it, I'll just reply: "but it won't be the same second!" )

How is length anymore real than time? They're very comparable to each other. They're both intervals between two points. Neither can exist without the two points you're looking at.

And of course you can't put a second in your pocket - it's too big. However, if you put a ruler in your pocket, you've put a nanosecond in your pocket (1.0167 nanoseconds would be more accurate). That would be as accurate as saying you've put a foot in your pocket.

Length just seems more real because you can measure it more than once - provided your measuring device isn't so accurate that you're measuring the actual location of the outermost electrons in the outermost molecules, which are most certainly not constant considering the object you're measuring is interacting with its environment (you'd definitely have a hard time duplicating your measurement of a snowball on a summer day).

Even if you can't measure the interval between two points in time more than once, you can measure the interval between two very similar points in time just the same as you can use length to measure the interval between two very similar points in space.

 

[shamrock5585]

i find the argument that you can carry something in your pocket makes something exist... are you carrying light in your pocket right now? regardeless if your pants are slightly see-through haha

 

[tiny-tim]

light-nanosecond

Hi BobG!

How is length anymore real than time? They're very comparable to each other. They're both intervals between two points.

erm … no … they're not!

However, if you put a ruler in your pocket, you've put a nanosecond in your pocket (1.0167 nanoseconds would be more accurate).

erm … no … you've put a light-nanosecond in your pocket … and that's a length, not a time.

 

[shamrock5585]

while you guys are comparing space and time i figured id point out that einstein postulated that time and space coincide and cannot exist without each other.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Clocks successfully measure time, therefore clocks prove time exists. Jut like rulers and distance.

Clocks prove that the relative motion and velocity of objects can be tracked and measured but do not prove that an extra dimension called 'time' must exist for the motion or change to have occured.

 

[ZapperZ]

Clocks prove that the relative motion and velocity of objects can be tracked and measured but do not prove that an extra dimension called 'time' must exist for the motion or change to have occured.

But you cannot have a complete description of the dynamics of the system if you do not have something called 'time'. So time isn't just "needed", it is "necessary".

Furthermore, if both c and the fine structure constants are fundamental constants of our universe (and there are plenty of indications that they are), then these two quantities cannot be defined without both the presence of "space" and "time". The definition of space requires the presence of time, and the definition of time requires the presence of space. It is why Einstein used light as the universe's basic scale of measurement, which puts both space and time on equal footing.

If time isn't real (whatever that means), then neither is space. Unless someone can come up with a complete description of a system without using one or the other, then this argument is nothing more than semantics.

Zz.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But you cannot have a complete description of the dynamics of the system if you do not have something called 'time'. So time isn't just "needed", it is "necessary".

Furthermore, if both c and the fine structure constants are fundamental constants of our universe (and there are plenty of indications that they are), then these two quantities cannot be defined without both the presence of "space" and "time". The definition of space requires the presence of time, and the definition of time requires the presence of space. It is why Einstein used light as the universe's basic scale of measurement, which puts both space and time on equal footing.

If time isn't real (whatever that means), then neither is space. Unless someone can come up with a complete description of a system without using one or the other, then this argument is nothing more than semantics.

Zz.

I'm sure there may be well founded proofs of why time must exist. Unfortunately I imagine that I'm not literate enough in mathematics and physics to fully understand them. On the other hand I certainly think the assertion that time must exist since it is measured by a clock is a rather poor proof (sorry Russ).

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm sure there may be well founded proofs of why time must exist. Unfortunately I imagine that I'm not literate enough in mathematics and physics to fully understand them. On the other hand I certainly think the assertion that time must exist since it is measured by a clock is a rather poor proof (sorry Russ).

I think Russ was responding to the fact that "space" has a "ruler". So time also has a "measurer", which is a clock.

Even a ruler intrinsically depends on two important things: (i) our ability to observe both ends of the object we are measuring to determine a length and (ii) that a length scale has been defined. We know already from SR that for a very long distance, where light does not appear instantaneously from both ends, our measuring system depends on light itself. That already force the determination of that length to be dependent on time. We just don't realize that because in our ordinary scale, we see both ends of the length that we want to measure rather instantaneously.

So it is not simply via coincidence that the definition of a "meter", for example, is intrinsically tied to the speed of light. And when c is used, you have no ability to discard either time or space, which make them both as necessities for our system.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

It's funny how often this subject comes up and with the zest of talking politics or religion.


Too bad that any thread can't have a 'key word(s)' selectable by the OP so that the "Similar Threads for" can bring up more specific topics instead of 'look-alike' words that just happen to be in the title.