Is Time Merely Constant Change?

[Outlandish_Existence]

I don't believe that the existence of "intelligent conscious"(for lack of more specific terms because I am tired) entities causes time. Only the perception of time/change viewed from those entities is what is observed. In actuality, time/change will happen whether we cease to exist or not. Where did evolution go? At some point there must have been no "life" in the universe. It didn't just pop into existence in an instance of instant spontanaity. Yet perhaps this is what the religions try to explain to us. The universe without life has no bearing of time since there is no consciousness to experience it. I'd have to disagree though, change/time always occurs, it's only the observation that ceases to exist.

 

[Doctordick]

Thus time exists in your mind only.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Since it is a plurality of informations ordered ones after the others. This order is well a reality ...

You are apparently presuming that the order you put upon these elements of information is a fact of reality. This, I am afraid, is something you cannot prove.

... but its representation with an independent parameter l (t) is just a mathematical tool like an integer number.

Any finite set (such as C whose elements are the sets B) can be ordered. It is your mental model of reality which presumes that this collection of finite B's which go to make up what you actually know are members of an infinite set which form a continuous stream B(t). What I show is that the shift symmetry of such a perspective requires your expectations (which you should understand also become a continuous function of that continuous parameter t) to obey the differential relationship that the partial with respect to t must vanish.

Likewise, in your attempt to explain C, you will recognize (or one could say, take notice of) patterns within those B's (the changes in what you know) which seem to repeat. Once you recognize these elements of your experiences they become a central element of your understanding. Once again, you will presume the existence of these elements within that continuous t. However your understanding proceeds, it will involve reference to those recognized elements. And once again, being finite (anything you know must be finite otherwise you couldn't know it), those references with the B(t)'s can be ordered and your mental model will presume that your understanding could involve additional cases of such patterns within that order of which you are not aware. Once again the index on that set of references (within a successful mental model) becomes a continuous variable and once again the existence of shift symmetry yields the fact that your expectations must obey another differential relationship. What I am getting at is the fact that we should all be very careful about our definitions. It is quite easy to produce multiple definitions with inconsistent overlap.

When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. If one begins that experiment by defining downhill with a carpenters level, one has made a major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment as downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water). In such a case, it is rather a waste of time to finish carrying out such an experiment no matter how well the rest of the experiment is designed. It should be clear that to do so is nothing more then checking the consistency of one's definitions.

The issue of the above example is that, before performing any experiments, one can not just presume they "know" what they are talking about but must very carefully define exactly what they mean by the terms they use. In the above example, one must first carefully define "downhill" and then consider all the consequences of that definition. To do otherwise is to just be sloppy! And people are often quite sloppy when it comes to their beliefs.

My presentation (in using the undefined elements A, B, C and D) makes establishing the definitions part of the problem to be solved. My equation is nothing more but an internal consistency constraint on the definitions of those elements.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[paigetheoracle]

Without motion time cannot exist, for there is no changed viewpoint to be percieved. This is also demonstrated by emotion - if you don't react to something then it changeless. Likewise depth of field (see Gregory's 'Eye and mind') cannot exist without movement to tell you that what you see is not one complete thing but made up of independent items (Blind people whose sight is restored have problems for this reason). Think also of holograms - without motion or the illusion of it, it couldn't work. If you cannot see round an object, you have no evidence that it is not flat or part of the background.

Talking of time and emotion - it seems to speed up when we're excited and slow down when we're bored, indicating time is alterable through response and is a measurement of rapid change or slowed down change.

 

[Canute]

Yes, but likewise without time motion and change cannot exist. It seems to me that either we must say that time, motion and change all exist inherently or that none of them do.

 

[RAD4921]

In man’s original view of the world, as we find it among the primitives, space and time have a very precarious existence. They become “fixed” concepts only in the course of his mental development, thanks largely to the introduction of measurement. In themselves, space and time consist of nothing. They are hypostalized concepts born of the discriminating activity of the conscious mind and they form the indispensable coordinates for describing the behavior of bodies in motion. They are therefore, essentially psychic in origin. ---Carl G. Jung


http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/010912a.html

 

[jeryst]

Distance is the relationship between the relative locations of multiple objects. Time is the relationship between the relative locations of multiple events. Both only exist as a means for interested parties to use, explain and/or convey those relationships. Therefore they are both nothing but concepts.

 

[MeJennifer]

Distance is the relationship between the locations of multiple objects. Time is the relationship between the locations of multiple events. Both only exist as a means for interested parties to use, explain and/or convey those relationships. Therefore they are both nothing but concepts.

The theory of relativity shows us that there is no absolute sense of a location. Something is only a location relative to something else. And the same with time, there is no absolute sense of time as well.

 

[SF]

If time is an illusion, what is it an illusion of?
Even if it _is_ an illusion, there must be something it's mimicking, 'cause it's doing such a darn good job at it!:)

 

[onycho]

An Infinity of Timelessness

Is it possible for gravity to be so great at one point or the speed at which one travels so fast as time to become infinite?

The following video (on YouTube no less) gives one something to think about concerning our consciousness' point of reference of reality. I believe that this short video comes very close to that which explains so many enigmas in today's physics.

[MEDIA=youtube]fg5us8isW7M[/MEDIA][/URL]

 

[moving finger]

If time is an illusion, what is it an illusion of?
Even if it _is_ an illusion, there must be something it's mimicking, 'cause it's doing such a darn good job at it!:)

that's like the question "if time is flowing, what is it flowing relative to?"

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

The following video (on YouTube no less) gives one something to think about concerning our consciousness' point of reference of reality. I believe that this short video comes very close to that which explains so many enigmas in today's physics.

[MEDIA=youtube]fg5us8isW7M[/MEDIA][/URL][/QUOTE]
questionably pretty images of flowers plus some cheap psychadelic effects - but so what?

Best Regards

 

[jeryst]

What happens to the Theory of Relativity if there is no such thing as time?

 

[SF]

that's like the question "if time is flowing, what is it flowing relative to?"

No it isn't, and analogies are illogical, members of this forum should know better :)

The word illusion implies a slight-of-hand, trickery, etc, whereas the fact that time "flows" is a fundamental property of time.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No it isn't, and analogies are illogical, members of this forum should know better :)

The word illusion implies a slight-of-hand, trickery, etc, whereas the fact that time "flows" is a fundamental property of time.

But there are models ("Block Universe") in which time - past future and all - is a static background and our worldlines twine into it, making the changes that we see and feel. Just asserting something as a fact because it seems obvious to you is less "logical" than a prudent use of analogy!

 

[SF]

For once, I'd like someone to explain what they mean when they say that "time = illusion".

 

[selfAdjoint]

For once, I'd like someone to explain what they mean when they say that "time = illusion".

I will try, no guarantees.

We have a sense of change in our lives that feels continuous. The idea of time being an illusion is that this sense is in some way false, illusional or mistaken. There is no sense of deliberate deception implied by the word in this usage.

Different people will give different reasons for asserting that time is an illusion, but IMHO they always come down to that.

 

[SF]

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

I quite see where you are coming from. Your position is a perfectly respectible one.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think people confuse 'time is not absolute' with 'time doesn't exist'

From what I understand from laymen author Brian Green, spacetime IS absolute, but neither space or time is absolute. They're relative to each other.

The point is that events don't happen instantaneously. Things are moving at once. Things moving have a velocity, which is defined as a the distanc something travels over the time it takes to get there. This is where the phenomena of time comes from. What doesn't exist, is fantasy ideas of time that tend to personify it... that doesn't mean that time itself doesn't exist, it's just a name for something that's much simpler concept, it's a way to explain rates of change (which has everything to with physics).

So Time as you thought it was before this OP, doesn't exist. You just have to redefine your definition of time to its fundamental significance of why we even care about it... because we can't instantaneously get to work... we can go towards work with a certain velocity, which time and space are both a part of, but we can't just teleport to work because we have a mass (and not many people really understand what mass is... we can only measure mass with distance (and maybe time), like every other unit, they can all be broken down to time and space).

disclaimer: I have not studied relativity in-depth yet, I'm a third year physics major.

 

[RAD4921]

The illusion of time

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

People have been contemplating whether time is real for thousands of years. Both Plato and St Augustine questioned whether time is real or only in the mind of man, long before the New Age movement or the movie the Matrix.
By the way I have never seen the Matrix because I usually don't watch fictiona; televsion. What is it about?

 

[RAD4921]

The illusion of time

Well, if a theory would come and say that time-space is discrete (aka: not continuous) would that qualify as "time = illusion".

I've seen too many associations between this Matrix-like "world = illusion" idea and new-age hype that tries to discredit physics (see: "What the **** do we know" documentary) to give any such theory credit. Sorry, it's just the way I'm built. :)

If a rational, proven theory comes up, i'll look over it.

People have been contemplating whether time is real for thousands of years. Both Plato and St Augustine questioned whether time is real or only in the mind of man, long before the New Age movement or the movie the Matrix.
By the way I have never seen the Matrix because I usually don't watch fictiona; televsion. What is it about?

 

[AnssiH]

I can no longer see time. All I recognize is the morphing and changing of energies/masses/matters. This concept of time we have is slowly deteriorating from my mind.

This is happening to me too. I just posted a message about time vs motion to another thread. It is not given whether it is time or motion that exists fundamentally, but it certainly seems like an easier road to assume it really is motion that exists. If you assume it is time that exists, ontological understand of reality becomes incomprehensible sooner or later.

I hate to repeat myself, so;
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1100575&postcount=130

 

[ptalar]

Isn't time just a tool man has created to analytically measure the world around him? Time as we measure it is based on how our planet and solar system work. If different civilizations exist on different planets their definition of time may change depending on the motion of their planets.

Life in the rainforest does not use a watch to keep track of time. Their motions are dictated by the revolution of the Earth into night and day and the position of the Earth around the sun as well as the weather.

So my premise is that time is an artificial tool created by man.

 

[DxDT]

you know I think that to be fair to time we can not say it doesn't exist but it is just a single variable among many. That variable itself changes with respect to other factors. For example, small animals such as insects 'feel' time differently from elephants for example due to our biological clock. so maybe the volume of space one is filled can contribute in a miniscule way- no scientific evidence supports that but it may be a fictional possibility. we've grown to understand time as the ticking of a clock.. if the clock stops time does not so we know it's independent of universal occurences in our own dimension. what of other diemensions? i believe, but have no evidence to support, that time is a variable that is a combination of several variables in some universal equation independent from current string theories and not related to any of einsteins theorems.. however it would agree with the time dilation we see when we approach C and all of it's similar and related effects...

my 2 cents

 

[AnssiH]

Well, the thing is that relativity strongly implies that time does not tick away but that future and the past exist all the time. So that's what I was talking about in the other thread.

So the question is, is it conceivable that there really is not any universal "now", but that any notion of "now" is relative to whatever direction you are moving? I.e. by changing direction, then beyond your sight the "now" changes in such ways that things can, as judged by your "now", even move backwards in time. (And note how this always necessarily happens beyond your observations, and cannot be directly observed)

Note also that if you consider "time" as if its a sheet which is expressing the motion of all the objects, it makes no difference to any "time experience" whether the sheet is moving or not, or which way or at what speed. So it is nonsensical to say that we experience motion because time moves. Any time experience exists only when the motion of two different physical things can be compared to each others.

In the case they are identical things, we can place them into different environments (like the other one in inertial acceleration and the other one in free fall) and observe that the other one has moved more than the other. To say this is "time dilation" is already making an assumption about time dimension that may be unnecessary and even false.

 

[kvantti]

Let it be said that when one tries to quantize general relativity, you get the Wheeler-De Witt equation that basically states that the universe doesn't change in respect to time:

In fact, the principle of general covariance in general relativity implies that global evolution per se does not exist; t is just a label we assign to one of the coordinate axes. Thus, what we think about as time evolution of any physical system is just a gauge transformation.

 

[RAD4921]

Well, the thing is that relativity strongly implies that time does not tick away but that future and the past exist all the time. So that's what I was talking about in the other thread.

I have heard people talking about how everything is happening at once. That is interesting. Do you know where I can ontain more information about this
RAD

 

[octelcogopod]

If we were able to 'freeze' a person in a room, and that the most fundamental entity/particle that exists would stop moving, in the whole room and the person, would time stop?

If the whole universe was frozen like this, on every scale there was no movement or change, would time stop?

I'm pretty sure I hear a reassuring 'YES' right now.
So what does that tell us?
IMO it tells us that time isn't a dimension in itself, but rather a phenomena of how the laws of physics guide the way matter and light moves.
If we can imagine that all part of reality is deterministic, then there are strict and unbreakable laws happening on the fundamental scale, that propagate through the entire system..

 

[kvantti]

Stopping particles from moving is impossible, even in theory. It's called http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu433-1.htm :

According to quantum mechanics, objects cooled to absolute zero do not freeze to a complete standstill; instead they jiggle around by some minimum amount. MIT researchers (Wolfgang Ketterle, 617-253-6815) measured such "zero-point motion" in a sodium BEC, a collection of gas atoms that are collectively in the lowest possible energy state.

So what you're suggesting is meaningles. Sorry for being a spoiler.

 

[octelcogopod]

I'm sorry for being so unclear, what I posted was a thought experiment, not one to try in the lab.

edit: I also want to mention that I was speaking about the fundamental particle, not atoms or molecules physically frozen.