Which theory of time is the most evidence-based?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter curiosity1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Block universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various theories of time, including Presentism, Eternalism, Growing Block Universe, Block Time Theory, and the Transactional Interpretation. Participants explore the nature of these theories, their interpretations, and their relationship to experimental predictions, while also questioning the very definition of a "theory of time."

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe Presentism as the view that only the present moment is real, while others outline Eternalism as the idea that all moments in time exist simultaneously.
  • The Growing Block Universe is presented as a theory where the past and present exist, but the future does not yet exist.
  • Block Time Theory is characterized as a variant of eternalism, suggesting time is a dimension similar to space.
  • The Transactional Interpretation in quantum mechanics is mentioned as a theory where past, present, and future are interconnected.
  • Some participants argue that these concepts are interpretations rather than theories, noting that they do not make different experimental predictions.
  • There is a question raised about whether any theory of time makes experimental predictions, with references to the special theory of relativity as making predictions about the speed of light and simultaneity.
  • Concerns are expressed about the definitions and philosophical implications of time, space, and their existence, with some participants suggesting that these are more philosophical questions than scientific ones.
  • Participants discuss the nature of spacetime, questioning what it is made of and how it relates to concepts of emptiness and geometry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the discussed concepts are theories or interpretations, with no consensus on a single theory of time being the most evidence-based. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the definitions and implications of these theories.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in definitions and assumptions regarding the nature of time and space, as well as the philosophical questions that arise from these discussions. There is an acknowledgment that the relationship between time and experimental predictions is complex and not straightforward.

  • #31
Thread closed for moderation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
After moderator review, the thread will remain closed.
 
  • #33
curiosity1 said:
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. I don't understand what space-time is. What is it made of? Isn't space just emptiness? As far as I know, at the speed of light, time stops. How does that work? I am sorry if my questions are silly - they reveal how little I understand!

The thread is shut.

Here's a comparison that might help. Remember geometry from school? Points have position but no size and a line length but no width. Such do not exist. They are abstractions. It talks about points and lines that exist in theory but not in the physical world. They're the building blocks of geometry, abstractions that help us understand the real world. Similarly, space-time is a theoretical construct that helps us make sense of the universe.

Every theory, every single one, is like that. They contain abstractions used in the theory. If you succeed in finding something deeper that either explains those concepts or somehow replaces them, in a sense, you have not got anywhere because what you replace it with has the same problem. Absolute knowledge is beyond science's grasp.

For time, like point and line, we all have an intuitive idea of what it is. To make it more precise, we need what is called an inertial frame. A frame is simply a standard of rest on which experiments can be conducted. An inertial frame has a special property - the laws of physics (again, an abstraction) are the same in any direction, at any point, or at any time. The earth is an approximate inertial frame. Suppose we have some repetitive process and count the number of times it occurs. Repetitive process is a fundamental abstraction. But since the laws of physics are the same at any point, time, or direction, we have a way to assign a number to the time it is anywhere in the frame. The count of the repetitive process measures time and is called a clock. This is the idea time is what a clock measures.

I will mention I am reading a book now that explains time at a deeper level, but it is advanced and needs as background what I wrote above:



Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: curiosity1 and Dale

Similar threads

Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
Graduate Block Universe Theory: Implications & Multiverse
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School Unlearning the Block Universe: How Relativity Challenges Our Perception of Time
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
10K
High School Clocks Vanishing into Thin Air - Gravitational Time Dilation
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
Graduate Unlearning Block Universe: BU vs Presentism Q&A
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
High School Refined Interpretation of Relativity of Simultaneity?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Gisin's ideas on time vs. special relativity—how does one reconcile them?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
High School Questions about Einstein and the Block Universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad 2 objects of enormous volume each in relative motion very close to c
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
High School Paradox in the block universe interpretation
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
5K