Does Time Really Exist? Debunking Common Beliefs

[bayan]

personally I believe that time is only made by humans to describe a thing (Change). if you guys believe in changing the coardinants of space, you would believe that we can change the coarinants of time as well.

here is a point that i do not get. If change of time is possible it would mean that it can be done either - or +.

how can one mass exist at two places when in reallity it exists in a diffrent place?

How do we see? Do we not see due to the reflectiong of EMR? if the light has not bounced to something and reflected back how can we see that?

If there is an explenation please tell me. I might even change my mine

Cheers mates!

 

[Antonio Lao]

personally I believe that time is only made by humans to describe a thing (Change). if you guys believe in changing the coardinants of space, you would believe that we can change the coarinants of time as well.

This is done in the theories of relativity, special and general - the dynamics of spacetime structures.

here is a point that i do not get. If change of time is possible it would mean that it can be done either - or +.

This is the same as the attribute of directional properties.

how can one mass exist at two places when in reallity it exists in a diffrent place?

All electrons are identical. They have the same mass, charge, and two states of spin. So two electrons can be in the same place iff they have opposite spin - Pauli's exclusion principle. Three electrons will never be in the same place. But three quarks can be in the same place because there are three color charge R, G, and B in contrast to electric charge of (+) and (-).

How do we see? Do we not see due to the reflectiong of EMR? if the light has not bounced to something and reflected back how can we see that?

We see because energy and matter can interact. This is the science of quantum electrodynamics (QED) or quantum field theory (QFT).

 

[bayan]

Is it possible to travel back in time?


If you can bend space you will be able to strech time.


For you to slow time you need to reach fast speeds, when you reach C time stops for you only.

are these things right?

If time can be streched it surly will be able to be compressed! To slow time you need to reach C. To speed up the time you will have to move slower than still

 

[Epsilon Pi]

With mind everything is possible; in fact in the same way we can access the future, most probably we can access the past, but physically it is another thing.
Even if we start with the prevailing physics paradigm, where time is assimilated to a space dimension, there are impossible problems to overcome, as we reach the velocity of light, an infinite "mass", an infinite "energy", according to those formulas due to Einstein.
Is not a flaw supposition to think that time stops with the velocity of light? It is not that way in the reality "out there". But in sci-fi everything is possible.
Regards
EP

Is it possible to travel back in time?


If you can bend space you will be able to strech time.


For you to slow time you need to reach fast speeds, when you reach C time stops for you only.

are these things right?

If time can be streched it surly will be able to be compressed! To slow time you need to reach C. To speed up the time you will have to move slower than still

 

[Antonio Lao]

Is it possible to travel back in time? If you can bend space you will be able to strech time.

According to general relativity, the bending of space also bends time or the same as bending of a spacetime structure, the radius of curvature decreases. But the curvature is the inverse of the radius. For zero radius (zero size), the curvature is infinite. So a truly point object has infinite curvature but it also has no size, its ddimension is zero, a point. In cosmology, this point is the big bang singularity where the time is zero, the volume is zero, the energy density is infinite, the temperature is infinite. In order to travel thru a different direction of time, one must first pass thru the singularity.

 

[sol2]

According to general relativity, the bending of space also bends time or the same as bending of a spacetime structure, the radius of curvature decreases. But the curvature is the inverse of the radius. For zero radius (zero size), the curvature is infinite. So a truly point object has infinite curvature but it also has no size, its ddimension is zero, a point. In cosmology, this point is the big bang singularity where the time is zero, the volume is zero, the energy density is infinite, the temperature is infinite. In order to travel thru a different direction of time, one must first pass thru the singularity.

Well put Antonio

If we were to look at young's experment for a moment, and you knew that the photon could take many roads to the backdrop, can you imagine the many worlds that could have been traveled by this photon, if it traveled through dimensions?

So I would ask you then, if you seen this photon travel through a gravitonic field, how would you describe it's journey, mathematically? All the events have been detailled in your post, so maybe go from there?

 

[Antonio Lao]

sol2,

The photon has never moved? It just transferred its influence to the next closest photon so on and so forth.

 

[sol2]

sol2,

The photon has never moved? It just transferred its influence to the next closest photon so on and so forth.

Let's say the photon is held to a early cosmological event. What information has been revealled in the photon?

 

[Antonio Lao]

The information reveals by a photon is that it has chosen a specific direction of linear motion. But since the original photon making the choice remains the immovable prime mover, it just relays this choice to the next photon, then the next, ad infinitum. This information is encapsulated into a wave packet.

 

[sol2]

If you quantize the gravitational waves, this information would have been locked into a discripiton of the photons energy value?

So in looking back to the early universe, the gravitonic energy, has been released into the bulk, would have released definitive information about the structure of that event?

In the event of binary stars rotating, there is a predictive possibility discerned from the closeness of these two, so it is loosing energy and giving us information.

How would you assign such spectrums if you did not considered the amplitutde of the event?

Please any corrections

 

[JayseR]

Let us take into account that much of what we learn or info that we gather is not always right. It is believed that most discoveries are false under some circumstances. This where the Laws are separated by the "concepts" or better known as "Theories" that we as people create. Considering we don't even know what protons, electrons, neutrons, etc look like, we coem up with theories and representations. If some of you think back to high school, you can probably rmember learning about little balls bouncing aorund called atoms because of heat. Do you really think atoms are just primitive balls with neutrons, electrons, and protons that just randomly jump aroudn because of heat? This representation is more then likely completely false. Some of you may ask, "Well, why do they teach it to us then?" Basically for 2 simple reasons. 1) It works! and 2) Although it may be stupid, they leave it up to some of us to add opn to this, or correct this.; Teaching us soemthign that is totally and utterly wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught to us. Think of history, most of what we learn in history are just guesses people made looking at a couple spear heads. Yet we still learn it. Like the old saying goes, "If we are unable to learn about our past, we are doomed to repeat it..." Yet many believe that we have existed for millions of years, whcih doesn't explain why our technology is so primitive. If we have existed for so long, why has it taken us millions of years to get just where we are today? I also don't believe that we had evolved from monkies. That concept is completely to farfetched. But getting back on track here. If you think of it, time "literally" was created by man. It is basically a visual representation of the events that take place around us, and more in-definition, the expanding of the universe. But as we should know, there are two times, there is what we call "real time" and then there is "imaginary time". Real-time is what us people use here on as a representation of motion on Earth and of Earth revolving around the sun. You can put real-time on a horizontal line scale, where you have, place on the left side of the line, the past, in the middle, the present, and to the right, the future. But, then there's the vertical line in which was called "imaginary time." Imaginary time is what was there before what we say is called "the big bang theory", or the beginning of time. It's what causes the universe to keep expanding. Could of the Big Bang have happened without time. Time isn't just based on what happens, what happened, or what's going to happen. It's based on other factors such as speed, and even temperature. 0 kalven is at the point when tiem stops. As someone said earlier, we would all freeze to death. Technically, we would all be dead logn before it reached that temperature. But let's say that we could survive to the point of 0 kalven. Would we actually die? If time is frozen, hwo could we die. for die is literally an action that is provided by time, then it wouldn't be possible if there is no time. Or if were to halt, would it be the beginning of time? 10e-43 is the point in which time supposedly started, and it all started with a singularity in which carried all the laws of physics, all matter, etc, and on the event horizon of a black hole, it is the point in which there is no time. And taking into mind that black holes apparently also have a singularity. Would it not be the start of something new? I will talk about black hole(s) in a later thread. But since time is a speed, obviously much faster then light, because if ligth were faster, light would just stop, or if it would even exist. If so, possibly just in one ball or sphere of light, which could not move in either directions because it could not move beyond time. Unless, it could move beyond time, would it not go into another time frame? Frames, we think of life and things around us in frames and cycles. Doesn;t it sound familiar? Possibly from a machien right in front of you or beside you. That's right, your computer. Most of it works in frames and cycles. Your fans, video card, etc. When you play a game, it's frames per second or (fps). Computers are made after how we see everything around us, only it is extended through imagination and creation and displayed through a screen. Now, all of our eyes can pick up movements at a certain rate, and the faster the rate, the harder it is for us to pick up, so whatever is moving becoem much smoother. Take 2 fps opposed to 100 fps. At 2 fps we can see every frame in the game that's happening. At 100 fps, the frames are moving to fast so as our eyes catches these frames, they collide together to form a smooth vision. Now say yuo have 0 fps. Nothign moves, yet when there is no movement in a game, it sin't running, therefore you end up with a balck screen, or the game crashes. It either freezes or crashes. Now let's refer this to reality, or what we "so call" ""reality"". If time were to stop, or as iw oudl call it, restart at 10e-43, would we be able to notice it if were were able to see faster then time? Or would we just see black? or as tiem stopped, reality crashes, and restarts? Or just collapses? Now if we were able to see faster then time, could we see into what's goign to happen (the future), or would it be just a stroke of black? Then you have to think of how we see now. We obviously see slower, so are we slightly behind time? maybe things are happening that we don;t know about, but it will eventually happen when we get there. What if we saw at the exact speed of time, would it just be frame by frame? Or black again, because it is faster then light. Or it must be faster then light. I ask question not only to you out there, but to myself because I am very skeptical about what i say. Much of it is most likely incorrect, in accurate and inprecise. We look at time as a significant variable, or as significant variables, but it's almost liek asking, what is the number "7"? Technically it is nothing. All it is, is a symbolic representation of numerous things. the number 7 in japanese looks much different. And we don;t even knwo if our math system is 100% correct. But I will touch base on that in a separate thread. So how can we say is our representation of time right?How about we ask the real question... How is time wrong. We shoudl always look for errors within our work. Try to prove ourselves worng. Be skeptical. But most importantly, "think outside of the box!" For example, don't use what we ahve already learned and try to add on. Think of something entirely new, just as einstein did when he developed the "theory of releativity." He was standing next to water one day, when he saw waves in the water. Then hetought what it would be liek to ride waves of light. Thus the theory of relativity was born. He thought outside of the box in which came to be a revolutionary theory in our society. So just think outside the box and be skeptical of your work. I have much more to add, but it runs on into a whoel new subject that yet relates to this...

 

[Smurf]

Hello! And welcome to the Forum Jayser!
Now, Please use Paragraphs in your next post.

-Ruler of the Universe,
Smurf

 

[Antonio Lao]

If you quantize the gravitational waves, this information would have been locked into a discripiton of the photons energy value?

Cosmologists get their information from photons. They are still hoping to get some information from gravitons. But the problem is nobody knows how to build a detector sensitive enough and capable of finding gravitons.

So in looking back to the early universe, the gravitonic energy, has been released into the bulk, would have released definitive information about the structure of that event?

Until we detected gravitons, we probably can never "see" the interior of a black hole or for that matter the big bang singularity at time zero. But can gravitons escape the pull of the black hole or singularity?

In the event of binary stars rotating, there is a predictive possibility discerned from the closeness of these two, so it is loosing energy and giving us information.

The binary companion with mass greater than the Chandrasekhar limit is detected to be pulling matter from the other and showing opposite jets of intense magnetic fields at right angle to the accretion disc. This seems to indicate that intense magnetic field is related to high mass density.

 

[sol2]

Until we detected gravitons, we probably can never "see" the interior of a black hole or for that matter the big bang singularity at time zero. But can gravitons escape the pull of the black hole or singularity?

See that last sentence is sure a tricky one

If I was to put my ole trusty glasses on, how would I see gravitonic gatherings?

The binary companion with mass greater than the Chandrasekhar limit is detected to be pulling matter from the other and showing opposite jets of intense magnetic fields at right angle to the accretion disc. This seems to indicate that intense magnetic field is related to high mass density.

The oscillatory effect is what is releasing this information? If this is a energy determination, then how would it be loosing the distance in between and become detectable?

 

[Antonio Lao]

Somehow gravitons are known to interact with themselves and it can be very difficult for a few gravitons to escape the the influence of so many other gravitons unless of course if the few are more energetic.

Even harmonic oscillators have a distance in term of wavelength. Can this wavelength be the Planck length?

 

[sol2]

Somehow gravitons are known to interact with themselves and it can be very difficult for a few gravitons to escape the the influence of so many other gravitons unless of course if the few are more energetic.


Even harmonic oscillators have a distance in term of wavelength. Can this wavelength be the Planck length?

What would gamma ray detection tell us about the early universe? Photon intersection? How about graviton intersection? Bold highlighted?

Thanks Antonio for your time. I will no longer be posting in this particular section

 

[Antonio Lao]

I am very skeptical about what i say. Much of it is most likely incorrect, in accurate and inprecise.

You possesses a scientific mind. But in order to achieve precision, you need to formulate your thoughts using mathematical language on fundamental physical quantities like space, time, force, energy, charge, mass and motion.

The main concept of this thread is "time." So a few precisely cutting questions are

1. Does time have a direction? 2. Does the motion of time varies? 3. Can there be a backward direction for time? 4. Can time be understood without also understanding space?

 

[Antonio Lao]

sol2,

The information carried by a wave packet can be digitized into binary numbers (0s and 1s) using discrete integral values for wavelength (unit of length is clearly defined) and frequency (no value less than 1).

 

[juju]

Hi all,

I have read some interesting articles about the possibility of a universe with no time.

Basically, this concept boils down to all states of the universe existing in some sort of phase space, where the apparent temporal progressions are a result of momentum in this phase space.

All states are accessible at any time, but not equally probable. The probability of the next state would be a function of the phase space momentum, which would be based on the path history of the universe through these phase space states.

juju

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Jayser",,,10e-43 is the point in which time supposedly started, and it all started with a singularity in which carried all the laws of physics, all matter, etc, and on the event horizon of a black hole, it is the point in which there is no time..."

That's not quite pedantically correct.
The singularity viewed as a Quantum event was a realized expression of a QM probability and the primal singularity altho it was all that existed, carried no information ("laws") until its bifurcation into various epochs: (i) heavy particle era (ii) light particle era (iii) radiation era (iv)
matter era.. There are sub-epochs that define other differentiations, but those are the general four we need to demonstrate that, say, matter interaction and photon /matter decoupling did not occur until at ~ 10^7 to 10 ^15, so how could the laws defining photon behavior or atomic interaction occur before those quantities existed?
As far as Time some play it as a fifth epoch, but 10^-43 is not the start of time 10^0 is,. 10^-43 is the place where all physical laws cease to be applicable or phenomenon be describable.

The event horizon of a black hole is the boundary where the influence of the singularity at it's center becomes inescapable even by light and we cannot know what occurs past that point.,tho S.Hawking raised some interesting issues at GR-17 about the information paradox. The acceleration of an in-falling mass (M) approaches c and time dilates, the faster the M accelerates the slower time progresses . The closer vM toward c the more t approaches infinity, so no mass will ever reach the singularity but the total gravitational effect of the BH now includes the Grav of our inflowing of Mass... .

 

[PRyckman]

Guys if D=(c-v)t
Then c can represent massless and v represent a mass.
If v is equal to c, then D=t
Therefor time only exists as a distance. Without connecting with a distance nothing can be measured. Because without time, there can be no other equations.

If you traveled at light speed you would be frozen no matter how far you traveled you would not age, would not move, or breathe. Until something stopped you from traveling at c. And allowed you to be part of time.

So you don't need any particle detector or two slit experiment to know this.

As for gravitons, doesn't E=mc2 and D=(c-v)t say that gravity is just a by product of this equation? If time is altered by mass and velocity, then at the subatomic scale, an electron may spend more time on one side of the atom relative to the other, thus causing a greater pull/push on one side of the atom, causing it to move towards the object with greater mass

Since light is not altered by time, only distance can affect it. Since the distance of space changes, relative to itself, it is traveling a straight line.

So there is no gravity particle, and magnetics is a chemistry equation.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Your terms are confusing me. The standard for distance(D) is that D=velocity over time.(D=vt) that's physics 101., you have stated that
"D=(c-v)t"
distance = the speed of light ( 300,000 m/s) - velocity times t.

let's see with arbitrary figures. 300,000m/s- 200,000 m/s times 1 sec= 100,000 m.

hmm let's try it the other way ...D=(vt)
200,000 m/s times 1 sec = 200,000 m

theres some wrong math there.

Your last post
"Guys if D=(c-v)t"

It doesn't

"Then c can represent massless and v represent a mass.
If v is equal to c, then D=t"

Well c is the constant for the speed of light in a vacuume...nothing to do with mass, v is velocity not mass.

"If you traveled at light speed you would be frozen"

You cannot accelerate a mass to c . period.

"Therefor time only exists as a distance."

No the two are separate concepts, but you could not traverse a distance unless t indeed exists.

There are other wrong ideas you state, but It's late and I'm not chastising You , but you need to be familiar at least with the basic physical laws including thermodynamics as well as basic Newtonian principles in order to understand and explore the lofty concepts that vex the best minds in the world. I wish You good luck on Your journey.

 

[KaneOris]

To saoshant

To Saoshant, I to have thought of time as being its own demension also. Now I am sure you would have based your idea on something completely different. But i just came to thinking of it one night and ever since I've written a couple of pages on it. Who knows maybe when i go to Uni i may investigate it more and write a PHD on it :)... probably many things wrong with the idea, but ill let myself find out if there is

 

[juju]

Guys if D=(c-v)t
Then c can represent massless and v represent a mass.
If v is equal to c, then D=t

If v=c then D=O, or t is infinite or both.

An observer riding on a photon would see the rest of the universe moving at the local speed of light and all other photons at rest.

juju

 

[PRyckman]

If v=c then D=O, or t is infinite or both.

No, look at the equation.
D=(c-v)t
Obviously, if v=c then D=t

You put the infinite's and zero's in there for yourself, because there is no way to solve the equation. The only way to solve the equation is to measure it, to give it a distance. Only then does it interact with time.

Well c is the constant for the speed of light in a vacuume...nothing to do with mass, v is velocity not mass.You cannot accelerate a mass to c . period.

Ok c nothing to do with mass, like I said. And ok, so v must represent a mass, since it can't accelerate to light speed. Like I said.

And as for the physics 101 comment, D=(c-v)t is correct, it's physics 701
The c from E=mc2
Is calculated by cross multiplying that equation, or rather, my distance is cross multiplied from equation for c


One more thing juju. Don't forget that what velocity was equal to right before it was equal to c, has no bearing on D=t it is not the same equation.


The only way to solve this equation is to get out there with a ruler.
Hence, the uncertainty principle, the two slit experiment and "the spooky action at a distance" As Einstein said, sorry I forget it's real name, It has to do with the polarization or spins of the particles, affecting each other across distance immediatly.

 

[Antonio Lao]

There is an intimate relation between two quantities such that for all positive values between zero and infinity of the independent variable, two distinct graphs can be shown that the product of ab=a-b.

$$a=\frac{b}{1-b}$$

$$b=\frac{a}{1+a}$$

$$1-b=\frac{b}{a}$$

$$1+a=\frac{a}{b}$$

$$(1-b)(1+a)=1$$

$$ab=a-b$$

The graph of abscissa b versus ordinate a is a discontinuous curve at 1, with 0 to infinity and from negative infinity approaching -1.

The graph of abscissa a versus ordinate b is a curve from 0 and approaching the value 1 at infinity.

 

[Antonio Lao]

When a and b are certain quantities for time, distance, velocity, mass, charge, force, or energy, the negative nature of these physical quantities can be explained.

This gives a basis for a renormalization principle and that is to find a and b such that

$$1=\frac{a-b}{ab}$$

 

[steelmouse387]

importance of movement

Here are my thoughts on the subject. It occurs to me (as it probably has to many other people in the past) that the only way we know about the passage of time is through movement. You may say that this is not true; that even when everything is still around you, you have an impression of the passage of time.

Things are not still however. While bulk movements may be absent, there are still tiny movements occurring everywhere. Thermal vibrations, quantum fluctuations and the like, but the movement of neurons in your brain (well, the movement of something - however the brain works basically - I'm not a neurologist).

Suppose now that we could stop these movements, disregarding QM for just a second (this argument is more about philosophy than physical observables anyway). If there were no movement - none at all, including the neurons in your brain - there would be no perception of the passage of time. Indeed, this is because your brain would not function, since it depends on the movement of neurons or whatever.

I guess in short I'm saying without movement there would be no time, and further, time is just a product of the way in which humans perceive movement (I suppose an alternative way of saying this is that without time, there would be no speed). Anyways, as I say, these are just some random thoughts on the subject.

(PS. I haven't read all the posts for this thread, so sorry if I've copied stuff other people have said)

 

[Antonio Lao]

but the movement of neurons in your brain

neurons are like rechargeable batteries connected in series or in parallel creating a network of nervous system for the body of a living creature. The electricity moving thru these organic batteries might be just chemical ions.

 

[juju]

No, look at the equation.
D=(c-v)t
Obviously, if v=c then D=t

D=(c-v)t

if v=c, then (c-v)=0

If (c-v)=0, then D=0.

I wonder if you are thinking about the space/time interval for a photon. For a photon the space interval is equal to the time interval and the space/time interval is equal to zero.

Your equation would be almost correct if it refers to the space/time interval.

Here, (ds^2)=((cdt)^2)-(dr^2)
so, (ds^2)=((cdt)^2)-((vdt)^2)
and (ds^2)=(c^2-v^2)dt^2

juju

 

[PRyckman]

first off, I'd like to point out once again, that the equation is already proven correct. Second of all if c-v=0 then D=0(t) Just looking at the equation tells you that something traveling light speed doesn't exist in time. And it's distance can only be found if you measure it. Once you measure it, you connect it to time.

Atonio, I know what it looks like on a graph. But you know you can't put it on a graph because to graph it, would show infinite. Therefor it's not the same equation when v=c and can't be graphd.

The only way to measure t for v=c is to measure the distance. Thus knowing it's exact place in the universe. Which pins it to a point in time.

One more thing, notice that if D equals zero, it makes sense because you know very well, that you can't know a photons position and momentum at the same time.

Thus, for light time=0 and distance=measured.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Atonio, I know what it looks like on a graph. But you know you can't put it on a graph because to graph it, would show infinite. Therefor it's not the same equation when v=c and can't be graphd.

In order to show the duality of time, that is two time variables plotted against each other, one being the abscissa and the other as ordinate, there are two complementary graphs.

one graph is plotted by t1=t2/(1-t2), the other is plotted by t2=t1/(1+t1). The result is t1t2= t1-t2. These two time variables can be equal if and only if t1=t2=0 (both equal zero). When they are not zero, the values can be found by the two graphs depending on which one is the dependent and independent variable.

For one graph, it can show that as t1 approaches infinity, t2 approaches 1. For the other graph, as t2 varies from zero to infinity, there is a discontinuity at t2=1, where t1 approaches infinity from the left and approaches negative infinity from the right. But for all values greater than 1 and as t2 approaches infinity, t1 approaches the value of -1.

 

[juju]

Second of all if c-v=0 then D=0(t) Just looking at the equation tells you that something traveling light speed doesn't exist in time.

Actually, if your equation is true, what it tells me is that if D=0(t), then something traveling at light speed has zero distance no matter what the value of t.

juju