Time Real or Not? - Arguments For & Against

[trevor white]

There appears to be an ongoing bias towards the existence of time as a dimension. Yet clearly there is an ongoing argument within the scientific community about it's existence. What are the arguments for and against times existence, As even after extensive reading including
Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime. and other related theories over the last 4 years most of the theoretical constructs appear to point clearly towards it's non existence.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF!

There appears to be an ongoing bias towards the existence of time as a dimension.

I'm not sure "bias" is the right word, but yes, the mainstream science position is that time is a dimension.

Yet clearly there is an ongoing argument within the scientific community about it's existence.

I don't think that's true. Could you provide examples of such discussion?

 

[A.T.]

There appears to be an ongoing bias towards the existence of time as a dimension.

Time is a dimension in some geometrical interpretations of physical theories. Whether that constitutes "existence" is a purely semantical question, not a physical one.

 

[Doug Huffman]

I'm not sure "bias" is the right word, but yes, the mainstream science position is that time is a dimension.

I don't think that's true. Could you provide examples of such discussion?

Smolin vs. Susskind. Smolin's advocacy of a background-independent physics. Smolin's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Reborn

• All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment.
  
• Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next or future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this process causing or implying future moments.

Smolin asks that time as essential and space as emergent be considered.

 

[bhobba]

There appears to be an ongoing bias towards the existence of time as a dimension. Yet clearly there is an ongoing argument within the scientific community about it's existence. What are the arguments for and against times existence, As even after extensive reading including Einstein-Minkowski Spacetime. and other related theories over the last 4 years most of the theoretical constructs appear to point clearly towards it's non existence.

Physics is a mathematical model. Time is naturally modeled as a parameter in our equations - I wouldn't call such a bias.

And of course it exists - clocks exist, and time, in physics, is what clocks measure.

Does it emerge from something deeper - quite likely IMHO - but I don't think there is any kind of consensus right now on exactly what that is.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

• All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment.
  
• Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next or future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this process causing or implying future moments.

I think such metaphysical gobblely gook illuminates nothing.

Time is simply what a clock measures - nothing hard about it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Nugatory]

Time is simply what a clock measures - nothing hard about it.

Bhobba is right. As far as science (which is what we talk about here) is concerned, it really is that simple.

Time to close this thread.