Is Time Real? Exploring the Physics and Philosophy of Time

[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.