- #1
Zac Einstein
- 26
- 0
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time?![Smile :smile: :smile:]()
What is time?
Zac Einstein said:Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time?![]()
What do you mean by "really Exist"? Do you have a definition or experimental procedure that allows us to distinguish between things that "really Exist" and things that don't?Zac Einstein said:Does time really Exist?
I suspect there is not even a definite question. You need to have a definite question before you can even hope to have a definite answer.cowmoo32 said:There's no definite answer
Zac Einstein said:Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time? What is time?![]()
Yes, sirTime will tell
Yes, sirWhat do you mean by "really Exist"? Do you have a definition or experimental procedure that allows us to distinguish between things that "really Exist" and things that don't?
Where where where ? where can I read his papers, sir? huh?as you see described ratherwell by Einstein should you read his papers.
Zac Einstein said:Where where where ? where can I read his papers, sir? huh?![]()
Zac Einstein said:Where where where ? where can I read his papers, sir? huh?![]()
dan_r said:This is a very philosophical debate indeed - is time simply a means of quantification or is it some kind of ethereal absolute?
I read Jim al-Khalili's book about Quantum Physics some time back, and I'm sure it was in there that he brought up the concept of having an infinite multiverse.
I contemplated an extension of this, that being that if we, as conscious entities, were constantly jumping into a new universe at immeasurably fast rates, were we actually standing still in time while the multiverse moved around us? More like existing as a sequence of multiversal snapshots, kind of like when you make a flip book with a little stick man doing different things.. you flip the pages, and it makes him look as if he's moving.
Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view... The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure... This second view... holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.
DaleSpam said:The moderators determined that some of the content was in violation of the PF rules and so they removed it.
Phrak said:If I claimed the future does not exist, would anyone have a problem with that?
If I claim the past does not exist, would anyone have a problem with this?
ZapperZ said:I don't know why this topic keeps popping up like a zit.
What if a phenomenon is characterized by the property of something. Would that qualify for that something to "exist"? Case in point: an object is characterized by its dimension. Does that imply that "space" exist?
If that is so, then look at the numerous phenomena that are characterized via the broken time reversal symmetry (google it. You'd be surprised at what you would find as some of the more "common" things that are described by such symmetry breaking).
So now, ask yourself this. If these things are characterized by the symmetry of something, wouldn't it be rather silly for that "something" to not exist? After all, we depend on it, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as a characteristic in describing such phenomena. Is this a typical description for something that doesn't exist?
Zz.
Zac Einstein said:Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time?![]()
ZapperZ said:I don't know why this topic keeps popping up like a zit.
Zz.
Zac Einstein said:Ahm...ahm
Excuse me, I see everyone has his own opinion
How about this, I think time exists but in a relative way![]()
That remains one of the most disappointing books that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.rhody said:I am not an expert here, and haven't read it yet, but just picked up: "https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195145925/?tag=pfamazon01-20" by Julian Barbour (have read summary reviews, but not the book).
Care to elaborate ? Lee Smolin thought it was pretty good.DaleSpam said:That remains one of the most disappointing books that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.
I was expecting a book that would explain how all of the physics formulas could be re-written to eliminate time. Instead the book devolved into a very lengthy monologue on Mach's principle. Since the universe appears to be non-Machian that was disappointing to me. The book really missed the mark of presenting physics without time.rhody said:Care to elaborate ? Lee Smolin thought it was pretty good.
nitsuj said:How about this these are perspectives on time, not opinions.
Zac Einstein said:Does time really Exist? Is there a single equation proves the existence of time?
What is time?![]()
atomthick said:Time can be thought of as beeing a measure of periodic processes. If we didn't have periodic processes in nature we probably didn't care or wouldn't be able to measure time.
The first time measurements were using the periodicity of the sun trajectory on the sky, later using timeglasses etc.
A nice thought experiment would be if someone can detach the notion of periodicity from the above definition of time and still get something meaningful.
Zac Einstein said:Does time really Exist?
DaleSpam said:I was expecting a book that would explain how all of the physics formulas could be re-written to eliminate time. Instead the book devolved into a very lengthy monologue on Mach's principle. Since the universe appears to be non-Machian that was disappointing to me. The book really missed the mark of presenting physics without time.
bobc2 said:Like DaleSpam I found Julian Barbour's "The End of Time" to be a letdown. Maybe because it promised far too much. He made a reasonable case that the psychological impression of time as specifically linked to the sequence of 3-D events observed by a conscious being could be an illusion. That idea comes out of the block universe concept and is of course not at all an original Barbour idea.
Even accepting the block universe concept, he falls far short of making the case that there is no time. The block universe still needs time to exist. And the consciousness that observes the Special Relativity evidence of a block universe needs time.
He deals with consciousness trivially and never makes it clear how you have conciousness without time.