Time Real or Not? - Arguments For & Against

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter trevor white
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the existence of time as a dimension, exploring arguments for and against its reality within the context of physics. Participants examine various theoretical constructs, interpretations, and philosophical implications related to time, including its representation in mathematical models and its measurement by clocks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest there is a bias towards the existence of time as a dimension, questioning whether this is a valid characterization.
  • Others argue that the mainstream scientific position supports time as a dimension, but they challenge the notion of ongoing debate about its existence.
  • One participant highlights that time's existence may be a semantic issue rather than a physical one, depending on the interpretation of physical theories.
  • References to specific debates, such as between Smolin and Susskind, are made to illustrate differing views on time and its role in physics.
  • Some participants assert that time is fundamentally what clocks measure, suggesting a straightforward interpretation of its existence.
  • Concerns are raised about metaphysical interpretations of time, with some dismissing them as unilluminating.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reflects multiple competing views on the existence of time, with no consensus reached among participants. Some assert its reality based on practical measurements, while others question its fundamental nature and the implications of various theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants express differing opinions on the implications of time being a dimension, the philosophical interpretations of its existence, and the relationship between time and physical processes. The discussion remains open-ended with unresolved questions about the deeper nature of time.

trevor white
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
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 news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!
trevor white said:
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?
 
trevor white said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
russ_watters said:
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.
 
trevor white said:
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
 
Doug Huffman said:
  • 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
 
bhobba said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
8K