Notices
Results 1 to 68 of 68

Thread: Does time really exist?

  1. #1 Does time really exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Does time really exist? (Yes I'm aware the next sentence answers my own question, but I'm looking for something not invented...)

    I know humans invented time as a measurement, but I still find the subject foggy.

    We have "before", "NOW" and "next" - but does "before" still exist or does it become another "NOW" for someone else in another existence - perhaps in a different dimension?

    Is it possible that each "NOW" splits off and creates a new reality - like a river branching out and creating new rivers, or each branch of a tree sprouting multiple new branches (hope this makes sense!)?

    Looking forward to some interesting answers!

    Rich.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Hi Rick - It's funny. My very first post ever to a science forum (different one than this one) was along very similar lines to the OP you've presented here. I've learned a lot of physics since then, and I realize that my question was really more about philosophy than physics. Yours is too, I suggest.


    I just found some of those old posts. Here's how I typed the question:

    It's always right now. Of this I feel certain. What gets me snagged is this discontinuity that comes with "nowness." The "right now" typed moments ago is somehow distinct from all other nows (for example, you reading this thread... a different now), yet somehow also the same.

    <...>

    The End of Time is an interesting book. Julian Barbour speaks about time not existing and being composed of little "slices." Sort of like a pile of photographs stacked infinitely high. Much of the book talks about psi and the Schroedinger wave equation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time_(book)
    Julian Barbour (born 1937) is a British physicist. He is the author of The End of Time, Absolute or Relative Motion? and The Discovery of Dynamics.

    He holds the controversial view that time does not exist, and that most of physics' problems arise from assuming that it does exist. He argues that we have no evidence of the past other than our memory of it, and no evidence of the future other than our belief in it. It is all an illusion: there is no motion and no change.
    <...>

    there does somehow seem to be a certain eternal, infinite, and continuous dilation of that frame (referring specifically to the film concept). It's easy to see NOW as quantized (an "event") and also to see those quanta running one after another like a film... frame by frame, but (and maybe I'm stuck on this point unecessarily) it has a continuity to it... like NOW is also all enveloping.

    Gosh... That was from like 6 years ago. I have learned SO much since then.


    I hear your comments about the many-worlds interpretation, too... like there's a collapsing wave function whereby it's always now ...and now ...and now ...and now ...and now ... ad infinitum... Although they are all somehow the same, they are also somehow distinct.


    Again, though... I think this is philosophy or metaphysics, maybe. Regardless, here's a pretty outstanding place to invest a few hours... whatever that is.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/


    Enjoy.
    ~InfiniteNow


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Does time really exist? (Yes I'm aware the next sentence answers my own question, but I'm looking for something not invented...)

    I know humans invented time as a measurement, but I still find the subject foggy.

    Rich.
    I'm quite sure that most humans (if they are interested) are capable of asking the most profound questions. Unfortunately, hardly any of us are capable of providing an answer, to these questions, and there are some questions (such as the nature of time) that nobody can answer.
    I have seen questions, on this forum, and I haven't been able to understand the answer given. I think I can spot some crap answers though, and that is a consolation.
    I have never thought of time in terms of a flowing river, altho' I do understand the analogy, but if time does not exist how does one explain time dilation. In other words what could be happening, given time dilation is a proven scientific fact, if time is simply a product of the human mind and, along with space, simply a concept humans have created and use to make sense of their environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Does time really exist? (Yes I'm aware the next sentence answers my own question, but I'm looking for something not invented...)
    Yes, but not in the way it's commonly described. Time doesn't really "flow", but it does exist. It exists like heat exists.

    Heat is real enough. A red-hot lump of iron will burn you. But when you look down at the subatomic scale, the particles have properties like spin, charge, and mass. They don't have any fundamental property of heat or temperature. Instead a piece of red-hot iron is hot because the atoms have a lot of vibrational motion. The temperature of that iron is an average measure of this.

    Time isn't the same as heat, but people get old and die, so you can say it does things to you. So it's real enough to say that time exists. But again when you look closely, the fundamental property at the root of it is motion. The thing we call "the time" is a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average measure. If you had a magic button that could "stop time" like in some science fiction movie, what you'd be doing is stopping motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    We have "before", "NOW" and "next" - but does "before" still exist or does it become another "NOW" for someone else in another existence - perhaps in a different dimension?
    No. It doesn't still exist, and it doesn't become another now for someone in another existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Is it possible that each "NOW" splits off and creates a new reality - like a river branching out and creating new rivers, or each branch of a tree sprouting multiple new branches (hope this makes sense!)?
    I'd say no, things move in this universe and that's it. I'd also say that the branching universe is a speculation resulting from a misunderstanding of time and quantum mechanics, one that is not based on any scientific evidence at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Does time really exist? (Yes I'm aware the next sentence answers my own question, but I'm looking for something not invented...)
    Yes, but not in the way it's commonly described. Time doesn't really "flow", but it does exist. It exists like heat exists.
    If you would bother to actually read anything, you would know that people that study these things don't use vague "time flows" language. You are attacking a straw man and replacing it with a man made of feces.
    The thing we call "the time" is a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average measure.
    You mean, it's a question of how much motion has happened until now? So you mean time is a measure of how much motion has passed in a given amount of time? This seems like more of your quality thinking.
    If you had a magic button that could "stop time" like in some science fiction movie, what you'd be doing is stopping motion.
    Quality thinking. I think we should call this fallacy the ad Potterum.
    'd also say that the branching universe is a speculation resulting from a misunderstanding of time and quantum mechanics, one that is not based on any scientific evidence at all.
    "Kettle, thou art black!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Time isn't the same as heat, but people get old and die, so you can say it does things to you. So it's real enough to say that time exists. But again when you look closely, the fundamental property at the root of it is motion. The thing we call "the time" is a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average measure. If you had a magic button that could "stop time" like in some science fiction movie, what you'd be doing is stopping motion.
    Hmm... Wouldn't motion be a result of time rather than time be the measurement of motion? Are you saying that if i were to stand in the middle of the universe without moving even one atom in my body, I would be "stuck in time"? Does time really affect us? If I were to have all the nourishment my body needs, when it needs it, without disease, would I not live forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    No. It doesn't still exist, and it doesn't become another now for someone in another existence.
    How do you know?

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    I'd say no, things move in this universe and that's it. I'd also say that the branching universe is a speculation resulting from a misunderstanding of time and quantum mechanics, one that is not based on any scientific evidence at all.
    Possibly, but I never claimed to have based anything on any scientific evidence - I have no education in physics, but it does interest me somewhat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Hmm... Wouldn't motion be a result of time rather than time be the measurement of motion?
    No. Just open up the back of a mechanical clock and you see things moving. The clock "clocks up" this motion and displays what you call the time. But that's just the position of the moving hands. Talking of hands, hold your hands up with a gap between them. You can see that gap, the space between them. You can't actually see space itself but you can see it's there because your hands aren't together. Now waggle your hands and you can see moving. You can see space and you can see motion, but you can't see time. So you've got some empirical evidence here to award primacy to motion and say time is the result of motion rather than the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Are you saying that if i were to stand in the middle of the universe without moving even one atom in my body, I would be "stuck in time"?
    No. If you were in a universe where there was no motion at all, such that light waves didn't move towards your eye and there were no nerve impulses moving around your brain, you'd be stuck in a motionless universe. You wouldn't be able to see or think. It's like you're in a "freezeframe" world but you've stopped motion not time, just like you do when you press the pause button on your remote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Does time really affect us? If I were to have all the nourishment my body needs, when it needs it, without disease, would I not live forever?
    No. Your body doesn't replicate its own cells perfectly. You'd still die of old age. And if you fixed that, you'd eventually get run over by a bus or something. But do note that in a way there's a "live forever" aspect to offspring. Your great-great-ad-infinitum grandaddy was some kind of worm wriggling about half a billion years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    How do you know?
    I don't. You can never prove that something doesn't exist. But if there's no evidence for something that's been mooted for decades, you owe it to yourself to be sceptical. We have no evidence of these different existences or dimensions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    I'd say no, things move in this universe and that's it. I'd also say that the branching universe is a speculation resulting from a misunderstanding of time and quantum mechanics, one that is not based on any scientific evidence at all.
    Possibly, but I never claimed to have based anything on any scientific evidence - I have no education in physics, but it does interest me somewhat.
    Fair enough. It's good to be interested, and it's good to talk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    PhysBang: deal with the OP. And if you then beg to differ with me do so politely. If you want to pursue it explain why you differ and give logic, evidence, references etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    ... You mean, it's a question of how much motion has happened...
    Yep. That's the size of it. The universe has been going for 13.7 billion light years.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    So you mean time is a measure of how much motion has passed in a given amount of time?
    No, it's a measure of how much motion has happened. Clocks clock up motion. That's what they do, be it a pendulum clock, a quartz clock, or an atomic clock. An atomic clock such as the NIST clock employs the electromagnetic hyperfine transition and electromagnetic microwaves, so it is essentially a light clock. It always comes back to the motion of light. See for example Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    PhysBang: deal with the OP. And if you then beg to differ with me do so politely. If you want to pursue it explain why you differ and give logic, evidence, references etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    ... You mean, it's a question of how much motion has happened...
    Yep. That's the size of it. The universe has been going for 13.7 billion light years.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    So you mean time is a measure of how much motion has passed in a given amount of time?
    No, it's a measure of how much motion has happened. Clocks clock up motion. That's what they do, be it a pendulum clock, a quartz clock, or an atomic clock. An atomic clock such as the NIST clock employs the electromagnetic hyperfine transition and electromagnetic microwaves, so it is essentially a light clock. It always comes back to the motion of light. See for example Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.

    Rubbish

    Crank
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    The universe has been going for 13.7 billion light years.
    Forgive the interjection, but isn't a light-year a measure of distance? So what does "the universe has been going for" mean in this context?

    {time is} a measure of how much motion has happened. Clocks clock up motion. That's what they do, be it a pendulum clock, a quartz clock, or an atomic clock.
    And what if my grandfather clock and my quartz watch display different "times"? Which is showing the "correct" time?
    {It}always comes back to the motion of light.
    Leaving aside (or not) that the concept "motion of light" is at best nebulous and at second best meaningless, what on earth would your so-called "motion of light" have to do with the fact that I am content to sleep, eat and awake according to the settings of the he hands on my grandfather clock rather than than of my quartz watch, say?

    The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
    Wow! Pure magic! And like most magic, it intends to deceive (readers note that the above is more than wrong; it is Farsight's first known attempt at mathematics, and bzzzt - fail! )

    Farsight, please do not post on subjects you seem to know nothing about. Also please and pleaser, do not proselytize, even to those us us (I include myself) whose knowledge of theoretical physics is rudimentary
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
    And his first attempt at mathematics matches all of his attempts at physics -- completely and utterly out to lunch.

    The mathematics of the Lorentz transform comes from preservation of the Minkowski inner product -- a decidedly non-Euclidean construct. The Pythagorean theorem hold in Euclidean spaces and only in Euclidean spaces.

    For a very nice treatment of special relativity from a geometric point of view see Gregory Naber's The Geometry of Minkowski Spacetime: An Introduction to the Mathematics of the Special Theory of Relativity .

    What we have in Farsight is a pitiful crank who craves recognition as a legitimate scientist. Nothing could be farther removed from reality. He has no training in and no understanding of physics. His underestanding of mathematics is less than zero. He is, unfortunately, a menace to young people who wish to learn real science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
    And his first attempt at mathematics matches all of his attempts at physics -- completely and utterly out to lunch.

    The mathematics of the Lorentz transform comes from preservation of the Minkowski inner product -- a decidedly non-Euclidean construct. The Pythagorean theorem hold in Euclidean spaces and only in Euclidean spaces.

    For a very nice treatment of special relativity from a geometric point of view see Gregory Naber's The Geometry of Minkowski Spacetime: An Introduction to the Mathematics of the Special Theory of Relativity .

    What we have in Farsight is a pitiful crank who craves recognition as a legitimate scientist. Nothing could be farther removed from reality. He has no training in and no understanding of physics. His underestanding of mathematics is less than zero. He is, unfortunately, a menace to young people who wish to learn real science.
    Do folks learn by reading different views or do they learn from readon absolute truth like SR.

    As we all know, SR is not a theory but an absolute fact of the universe. Any that would dare try to question it is naturally a crackpot.

    Do I have your argument down yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Does time really exist? (Yes I'm aware the next sentence answers my own question, but I'm looking for something not invented...)
    Yes, but not in the way it's commonly described. Time doesn't really "flow", but it does exist. It exists like heat exists.
    If you would bother to actually read anything, you would know that people that study these things don't use vague "time flows" language. You are attacking a straw man and replacing it with a man made of feces.
    The thing we call "the time" is a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average measure.
    You mean, it's a question of how much motion has happened until now? So you mean time is a measure of how much motion has passed in a given amount of time? This seems like more of your quality thinking.
    If you had a magic button that could "stop time" like in some science fiction movie, what you'd be doing is stopping motion.
    Quality thinking. I think we should call this fallacy the ad Potterum.
    'd also say that the branching universe is a speculation resulting from a misunderstanding of time and quantum mechanics, one that is not based on any scientific evidence at all.
    "Kettle, thou art black!"

    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Do folks learn by reading different views or do they learn from readon absolute truth like SR.

    As we all know, SR is not a theory but an absolute fact of the universe. Any that would dare try to question it is naturally a crackpot.

    Do I have your argument down yet?
    Nope.

    You have yet to make a correct statement in this forum.

    This one is not even close.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Do folks learn by reading different views or do they learn from readon absolute truth like SR.

    As we all know, SR is not a theory but an absolute fact of the universe. Any that would dare try to question it is naturally a crackpot.

    Do I have your argument down yet?
    Nope.

    You have yet to make a correct statement in this forum.

    This one is not even close.
    Well, now, what don't you ease on over to the thread on the twins paradox I posted or the missing LT vector thread.

    You are talker and not a doer.

    Everyone will be watching to see if you follow through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Do folks learn by reading different views or do they learn from readon absolute truth like SR.

    As we all know, SR is not a theory but an absolute fact of the universe. Any that would dare try to question it is naturally a crackpot.

    Do I have your argument down yet?
    Nope.

    You have yet to make a correct statement in this forum.

    This one is not even close.
    Well, now, what don't you ease on over to the thread on the twins paradox I posted or the missing LT vector thread.

    You are talker and not a doer.

    Everyone will be watching to see if you follow through.

    I assume they are in Pseudoscience as I don't see them in Physics. That is sufficient quarantine to satisfy me.

    The twin "paradox" is very simple. The Lorentz metric of spacetime maximizes the distance along geodesics. The stay at home twin, in freefall, follows a geodesic path (world line). The traveling twin, because he is accelerating, follows a non-geodesic world line. His worldline is therefore shorter between the two points at which the twins meet. The length of their world line is the proper time experienced by each of the twins. QED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Do folks learn by reading different views or do they learn from readon absolute truth like SR.

    As we all know, SR is not a theory but an absolute fact of the universe. Any that would dare try to question it is naturally a crackpot.

    Do I have your argument down yet?
    Nope.

    You have yet to make a correct statement in this forum.

    This one is not even close.
    Well, now, what don't you ease on over to the thread on the twins paradox I posted or the missing LT vector thread.

    You are talker and not a doer.

    Everyone will be watching to see if you follow through.

    I assume they are in Pseudoscience as I don't see them in Physics. That is sufficient quarantine to satisfy me.

    The twin "paradox" is very simple. The Lorentz metric of spacetime maximizes the distance along geodesics. The stay at home twin, in freefall, follows a geodesic path (world line). The traveling twin, because he is accelerating, follows a non-geodesic world line. His worldline is therefore shorter between the two points at which the twins meet. The length of their world line is the proper time experienced by each of the twins. QED
    What is that smell? Fear?

    Some big tough intellectual like you would ease over to my threads and correct me.

    Further, if you do not venture into the Pseudoscience threads, your argument might have some merit.

    But you do.

    Therefore, you confess your fear of real debate with me because you agree I am superior.

    Now, if you refuse to venture, all will know I am correct.

    If you come to the threads, again, because I am correct, all will know because I will demonstrate you are wrong.

    F'ed if you do and F'ed if you don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    The universe has been going for 13.7 billion light years.
    Forgive the interjection, but isn't a light-year a measure of distance? So what does "the universe has been going for" mean in this context?

    {time is} a measure of how much motion has happened. Clocks clock up motion. That's what they do, be it a pendulum clock, a quartz clock, or an atomic clock.
    And what if my grandfather clock and my quartz watch display different "times"? Which is showing the "correct" time?
    {It}always comes back to the motion of light.
    Leaving aside (or not) that the concept "motion of light" is at best nebulous and at second best meaningless, what on earth would your so-called "motion of light" have to do with the fact that I am content to sleep, eat and awake according to the settings of the he hands on my grandfather clock rather than than of my quartz watch, say?

    The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
    Wow! Pure magic! And like most magic, it intends to deceive (readers note that the above is more than wrong; it is Farsight's first known attempt at mathematics, and bzzzt - fail! )

    Farsight, please do not post on subjects you seem to know nothing about. Also please and pleaser, do not proselytize, even to those us us (I include myself) whose knowledge of theoretical physics is rudimentary
    Thank you for pointing out when someone is incorrect. It's really difficult to distinguish between fact and nonsense when you have very little knowledge of a subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Guys... can we please stop the bickering like old ladies and keep to the subject?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    If you come to the threads, again, because I am correct, all will know because I will demonstrate you are wrong.
    Chinglu, your statement is incorrect. I know you are full of more shit than sewage farm in Detroit. Only your anonimity prevents you from being embarassed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Guys... can we please stop the bickering like old ladies and keep to the subject?
    No.

    You are the unfortunate recipient of the fact that two persistent wackos, Farsight and chinglu, continue to pollute a hard science forum.

    As you noted, it is necessary to clearly brand these nut cases so that well-meaning neophytes, like you, are not led astray.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    8
    is it still valid to answer the OP's question?

    (by the way, Julian Barbour is one of the best starting points for a discussion on the physics of Time that one can currently find).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by foszae
    is it still valid to answer the OP's question?

    (by the way, Julian Barbour is one of the best starting points for a discussion on the physics of Time that one can currently find).
    Barbour is WAY out on the fringe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Barbour is not out on the fringe. He's very theoretical, but theoretical physicists do not dismiss his work out of hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    Barbour is not out on the fringe. He's very theoretical, but theoretical physicists do not dismiss his work out of hand.
    I did not say that he is completely wacko, but he is indeed way out on the fringe. His ideas on time are are extremely speculative and not part of any accepted theory or any theory likely to be put forth and tested in the forseeable future. That stuff is closer to philosophy than physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    It's really difficult to distinguish between fact and nonsense when you have very little knowledge of a subject.
    I could not agree more, that is why we have moderators, who presumably, have sufficient knowledge, time and interest in "their" subforum to weed out the genuine from the nut-job.

    It is no good for, say, DrRocket to say "no you're wrong" on the one side and Farsight and chinglu, say, on the other side to say "no it is you who are wrong" - well they would say that, wouldn't they.

    I repeat, that is why we have moderators who are appointed because of their presumed expertise, commitment to the standards of this forum, and willingness to spend as much time as it takes to stop this site becoming a complete circus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    It's really difficult to distinguish between fact and nonsense when you have very little knowledge of a subject.
    I could not agree more, that is why we have moderators, who presumably, have sufficient knowledge, time and interest in "their" subforum to weed out the genuine from the nut-job.

    It is no good for, say, DrRocket to say "no you're wrong" on the one side and Farsight and chinglu, say, on the other side to say "no it is you who are wrong" - well they would say that, wouldn't they.

    I repeat, that is why we have moderators who are appointed because of their presumed expertise, commitment to the standards of this forum, and willingness to spend as much time as it takes to stop this site becoming a complete circus.
    On the other hand, elsewhere, I have seen moderators with PhDs in physics get it wrong. Not badly wrong, but dogmatically sticking to a single point of virew when several equivalent points of view are valid.

    Farsight and chinglu have been shown in detail why they are wrong, but I do not have time or inclination to continually reproduce that detail. Suffice it to say that they are so completely put to lunch to qualify forn Pauli's "Not even wrong."

    It would be really nice if the mods did the job that you and I apparently agree that they should be doing, and muzzled the wackos in the hard science forums. However it is embarrassingly obvious that the forum ownereship cares more for post count and advertising revenue than for quality of posts and accuracy of information for the neophytes who are interested in learning real science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    Hi, These are my thoughts on time existence, would love to hear your thoughts:

    Like I have always said, there is no such thing as time. Time exists only because there is a witness to "The Reaction" (the continuation of energy changing form). Without a witness to the reaction, the reaction would happen instantaneously. The illusion of time, is the rate we comprehend the reaction. In the same way that a movie camera works, our brains take snapshots of the universe and makes it seem to happen at a continuous rate.

    One might then ask, “Well how much time passes between each snapshot?”. There is no amount of time in between the snapshots, there is only ,“the amount of the reaction”, that takes place before we take the next snapshot. We get the illusion of time because the reaction doesn’t stop. The reaction always reaches the point where our brains take the next snapshot. “The rate of the reaction”, can be accelerated by different means (gravity, traveling closer to the speed of light). But “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before our brain takes the next snapshot will always be the same. Hence, the illusion of time will always be the same to the witness even if “the rate of the reaction” changes.

    An easy example of this being correct happens to you every day. Just say you have a very sound nights sleep. How long does it feel like it took between the time you went to sleep and the time you woke up? Almost instantaneous? Did time exist while you were asleep? The reaction still happened. It’s just you weren’t awake to watch it happen at a certain rate. Hence, there is no such thing as time.

    Science has shown that the larger the gravitational force on an object the slower time happens. Experiments have shown that if you have two synchronized atomic clocks, one on the top of Mt Everest and one at sea level, the one at sea level will tick infinitesimally slower (closer to the gravitational force of earth). Time isn’t going slower, the rate of the reaction is.

    Just say we could do an this experiment on a much larger scale where one clock ticks once (on Earth) for every twice the other clock ticks (distant space ship from earth). I call this, “The Johnsonators Time Delusion Experiment”. Do you think that if you were on the space ship everything would seem to be happening twice as fast? I believe the answer is no. Everything would seem to be ticking away just like it would if you were on earth. If you then traveled back to earth, you would be physically older, but you would have felt the same amount of “time” pass by as the person on earth. Does this mean that in some places in space they are in the past!? No. Everything is happening at the same moment. It’s just that you traveled to a location in space where the “rate of the reaction” was greater than on earth.

    The problem is that we believe that space and time are intimately connected. Time occurs at different locations in space. This is called the space-time continuum. Time is considered the 4th dimension. But there is no such thing as time. There is only differing “rates of the reaction” in different locations in space. Our latest theories state that both Space and Time were created at the same moment as the big bang. My belief is that the gravitational force of all the matter in the universe results in the “rate of the reaction” to be zero. And that Space has always existed.


    My Predictions:

    We will discover that the t in all of our know equations will need to be taken out and replaced by “the rate of the reaction”.

    We will discover that somewhere in the brain is a mechanism that ticks over and takes a snapshot every time a very equal and precise “amount of the reaction” takes place. Hence, giving the illusion of time.

    We will discover that in certain moments, like car accidents, the brain can decrease “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before the next snapshot and hence give the impression that time is going slower.

    We will discover how to control “the amount of the reaction” that occurs before each snapshot is taken and hence be able to watch/do things in slow motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    Hi, These are my thoughts on time existence, would love to hear your thoughts:

    Like I have always said, there is no such thing as time. Time exists only because there is a witness to "The Reaction" (the continuation of energy changing form). Without a witness to the reaction, the reaction would happen instantaneously. The illusion of time, is the rate we comprehend the reaction. In the same way that a movie camera works, our brains take snapshots of the universe and makes it seem to happen at a continuous rate.

    One might then ask, “Well how much time passes between each snapshot?”. There is no amount of time in between the snapshots, there is only ,“the amount of the reaction”, that takes place before we take the next snapshot. We get the illusion of time because the reaction doesn’t stop. The reaction always reaches the point where our brains take the next snapshot. “The rate of the reaction”, can be accelerated by different means (gravity, traveling closer to the speed of light). But “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before our brain takes the next snapshot will always be the same. Hence, the illusion of time will always be the same to the witness even if “the rate of the reaction” changes.

    An easy example of this being correct happens to you every day. Just say you have a very sound nights sleep. How long does it feel like it took between the time you went to sleep and the time you woke up? Almost instantaneous? Did time exist while you were asleep? The reaction still happened. It’s just you weren’t awake to watch it happen at a certain rate. Hence, there is no such thing as time.

    Science has shown that the larger the gravitational force on an object the slower time happens. Experiments have shown that if you have two synchronized atomic clocks, one on the top of Mt Everest and one at sea level, the one at sea level will tick infinitesimally slower (closer to the gravitational force of earth). Time isn’t going slower, the rate of the reaction is.

    Just say we could do an this experiment on a much larger scale where one clock ticks once (on Earth) for every twice the other clock ticks (distant space ship from earth). I call this, “The Johnsonators Time Delusion Experiment”. Do you think that if you were on the space ship everything would seem to be happening twice as fast? I believe the answer is no. Everything would seem to be ticking away just like it would if you were on earth. If you then traveled back to earth, you would be physically older, but you would have felt the same amount of “time” pass by as the person on earth. Does this mean that in some places in space they are in the past!? No. Everything is happening at the same moment. It’s just that you traveled to a location in space where the “rate of the reaction” was greater than on earth.

    The problem is that we believe that space and time are intimately connected. Time occurs at different locations in space. This is called the space-time continuum. Time is considered the 4th dimension. But there is no such thing as time. There is only differing “rates of the reaction” in different locations in space. Our latest theories state that both Space and Time were created at the same moment as the big bang. My belief is that the gravitational force of all the matter in the universe results in the “rate of the reaction” to be zero. And that Space has always existed.


    My Predictions:

    We will discover that the t in all of our know equations will need to be taken out and replaced by “the rate of the reaction”.

    We will discover that somewhere in the brain is a mechanism that ticks over and takes a snapshot every time a very equal and precise “amount of the reaction” takes place. Hence, giving the illusion of time.

    We will discover that in certain moments, like car accidents, the brain can decrease “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before the next snapshot and hence give the impression that time is going slower.

    We will discover how to control “the amount of the reaction” that occurs before each snapshot is taken and hence be able to watch/do things in slow motion.
    Thanks, your answer seems like a really good example and is easy to relate to. Easy to follow and logical explanation. Now we will wait and see if someone tears you a new ***hole
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    As far as I can see the "rate of reaction" is what we mere mortals call "time".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    Sort of.

    What I'm trying to explain is that there is a difference between the "rate of the reaction" (which varies depending on our location in space) and our perception of time (which will never change). Our perception of time will never change because it's dependent on "an amount of the reaction" that takes place before we take each snapshot.

    I'm suggesting that we could make time seem to slow down if we can change "the amount of the reaction" that takes place between each snap shot.

    I'm not very good at explaining things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    I'm the gentle sort!

    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    Like I have always said, there is no such thing as time.
    I'm sure there's an irony in that statement somewhere!

    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    Time exists only because there is a witness to "The Reaction" (the continuation of energy changing form). Without a witness to the reaction, the reaction would happen instantaneously.
    Does the "witness" have to be intelligent, like a human? Or will any sentient (animal?) do? Do plants also count? Amoebae? In other words, what constitutes a witness?

    Did the whole history of the universe play out instantaneously until something in the universe evolved that could perceive time? If so, how to quantify "how much" of the history passed instantaneously before something evolved? Surely if any of the history of the universe passes instantaneously, the whole history could pass in the same instant? How does that work?

    Or perhaps you suggest there has always been a witness? Is that where this line of thinking takes us?

    There is a famous line which goes something like the following:

    "Time is that which stops everything happening at once".

    But I don't think a witness is required for everything not to happen at once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    No, the witness doesn’t have to be intelligent, it can be any living thing that relies on seeing the reaction at a rate.

    Yes, I am saying that the whole of history happened instantaneously. Something didn’t have to evolve to “perceive” time. Time was created when a being started “observing the reaction at a rate”. The rate in which we observe the reaction is constant because there is a mechanism within our brains that ticks over every time an equal and precise amount of the reaction takes place and then takes a snapshot. Resulting in us witnessing the reaction at a certain rate (time).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, Earth.
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    Sort of.

    What I'm trying to explain is that there is a difference between the "rate of the reaction" (which varies depending on our location in space) and our perception of time (which will never change). Our perception of time will never change because it's dependent on "an amount of the reaction" that takes place before we take each snapshot.

    I'm suggesting that we could make time seem to slow down if we can change "the amount of the reaction" that takes place between each snap shot.

    I'm not very good at explaining things.
    I know what you mean. Kind of as if we changed the duration between frames, just as we do in animation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    Yes, it's exactly the same, except in animation "the duration" is time and in our brains "the duration" is the amount of the reaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    It's really difficult to distinguish between fact and nonsense when you have very little knowledge of a subject.
    I could not agree more, that is why we have moderators, who presumably, have sufficient knowledge, time and interest in "their" subforum to weed out the genuine from the nut-job.

    It is no good for, say, DrRocket to say "no you're wrong" on the one side and Farsight and chinglu, say, on the other side to say "no it is you who are wrong" - well they would say that, wouldn't they.

    I repeat, that is why we have moderators who are appointed because of their presumed expertise, commitment to the standards of this forum, and willingness to spend as much time as it takes to stop this site becoming a complete circus.
    On the other hand, elsewhere, I have seen moderators with PhDs in physics get it wrong. Not badly wrong, but dogmatically sticking to a single point of virew when several equivalent points of view are valid.

    Farsight and chinglu have been shown in detail why they are wrong, but I do not have time or inclination to continually reproduce that detail. Suffice it to say that they are so completely put to lunch to qualify forn Pauli's "Not even wrong."

    It would be really nice if the mods did the job that you and I apparently agree that they should be doing, and muzzled the wackos in the hard science forums. However it is embarrassingly obvious that the forum ownereship cares more for post count and advertising revenue than for quality of posts and accuracy of information for the neophytes who are interested in learning real science.
    I must be honest, I rarely find your comments useful. You obey current science as if it contained absolute truth, whatever that means.

    And, you have not shown any case in which I am wrong.

    I have 2 uncontested threads in which you retreated. One does not lecture when they retreat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    If you come to the threads, again, because I am correct, all will know because I will demonstrate you are wrong.
    Chinglu, your statement is incorrect. I know you are full of more shit than sewage farm in Detroit. Only your anonimity prevents you from being embarassed.
    thanks for your hidden circle. Everyone has one.

    If you could be specific with your assertions...........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I must be honest, I rarely find your comments useful. You obey current science as if it contained absolute truth, whatever that means.

    And, you have not shown any case in which I am wrong.

    I have 2 uncontested threads in which you retreated. One does not lecture when they retreat.
    Given the source, these statements are very reassuring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    Hi, These are my thoughts on time existence, would love to hear your thoughts:

    Like I have always said, there is no such thing as time. Time exists only because there is a witness to "The Reaction" (the continuation of energy changing form). Without a witness to the reaction, the reaction would happen instantaneously. The illusion of time, is the rate we comprehend the reaction. In the same way that a movie camera works, our brains take snapshots of the universe and makes it seem to happen at a continuous rate.

    One might then ask, “Well how much time passes between each snapshot?”. There is no amount of time in between the snapshots, there is only ,“the amount of the reaction”, that takes place before we take the next snapshot. We get the illusion of time because the reaction doesn’t stop. The reaction always reaches the point where our brains take the next snapshot. “The rate of the reaction”, can be accelerated by different means (gravity, traveling closer to the speed of light). But “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before our brain takes the next snapshot will always be the same. Hence, the illusion of time will always be the same to the witness even if “the rate of the reaction” changes.

    An easy example of this being correct happens to you every day. Just say you have a very sound nights sleep. How long does it feel like it took between the time you went to sleep and the time you woke up? Almost instantaneous? Did time exist while you were asleep? The reaction still happened. It’s just you weren’t awake to watch it happen at a certain rate. Hence, there is no such thing as time.

    Science has shown that the larger the gravitational force on an object the slower time happens. Experiments have shown that if you have two synchronized atomic clocks, one on the top of Mt Everest and one at sea level, the one at sea level will tick infinitesimally slower (closer to the gravitational force of earth). Time isn’t going slower, the rate of the reaction is.

    Just say we could do an this experiment on a much larger scale where one clock ticks once (on Earth) for every twice the other clock ticks (distant space ship from earth). I call this, “The Johnsonators Time Delusion Experiment”. Do you think that if you were on the space ship everything would seem to be happening twice as fast? I believe the answer is no. Everything would seem to be ticking away just like it would if you were on earth. If you then traveled back to earth, you would be physically older, but you would have felt the same amount of “time” pass by as the person on earth. Does this mean that in some places in space they are in the past!? No. Everything is happening at the same moment. It’s just that you traveled to a location in space where the “rate of the reaction” was greater than on earth.

    The problem is that we believe that space and time are intimately connected. Time occurs at different locations in space. This is called the space-time continuum. Time is considered the 4th dimension. But there is no such thing as time. There is only differing “rates of the reaction” in different locations in space. Our latest theories state that both Space and Time were created at the same moment as the big bang. My belief is that the gravitational force of all the matter in the universe results in the “rate of the reaction” to be zero. And that Space has always existed.


    My Predictions:

    We will discover that the t in all of our know equations will need to be taken out and replaced by “the rate of the reaction”.

    We will discover that somewhere in the brain is a mechanism that ticks over and takes a snapshot every time a very equal and precise “amount of the reaction” takes place. Hence, giving the illusion of time.

    We will discover that in certain moments, like car accidents, the brain can decrease “the amount of the reaction” that takes place before the next snapshot and hence give the impression that time is going slower.

    We will discover how to control “the amount of the reaction” that occurs before each snapshot is taken and hence be able to watch/do things in slow motion.

    1) Science has shown that the frequency of light changes based on gravity. That means frequency measuring devices would measure frequency differently based on the gravitational field.

    Our precise clocks are frequency measuring devices. therfore, it is natural they would change based on gravity.

    So,the whole logic of your post is that the measurement of the frequency of light is an absolute GOD given truth of the measurement of time.

    However, if we use distant light star aberration, all observers in our solar system will contend that earth's revolution around the sun is an "absolute" measure of time for all observers since they will all agree on the concept of "earth years" based on astronomical observation of distant light star aberration.

    Therefore, I assume we are looking for some accurate device for measuring time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I must be honest, I rarely find your comments useful. You obey current science as if it contained absolute truth, whatever that means.

    And, you have not shown any case in which I am wrong.

    I have 2 uncontested threads in which you retreated. One does not lecture when they retreat.
    Given the source, these statements are very reassuring.
    Let's go over to the missing vector thread and discuss this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    If you could imagine that you are the only living thing in the universe and your sitting on the moon. You would see the earth rotate every 24 hrs while you circle around the earth every 28 days. If suddenly you didn't exist either, would the time it takes for the earth to rotate still be the same? Would there be such thing as an "hour"?

    You see what I'm getting at? Time is merly the rate that we observe things at. The reaction would still happen. The "rate of reaction" in different locations in space would still vary relative to each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    If you could imagine that you are the only living thing in the universe and your sitting on the moon. You would see the earth rotate every 24 hrs while you circle around the earth every 28 days. If suddenly you didn't exist either, would the time it takes for the earth to rotate still be the same? Would there be such thing as an "hour"?

    You see what I'm getting at? Time is merly the rate that we observe things at. The reaction would still happen. The "rate of reaction" in different locations in space would still vary relative to each other.
    What are you getting at?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    That point was to reiterate "what I've been getting at" from the previous posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    That point was to reiterate "what I've been getting at" from the previous posts.
    Well, I am not seeing you make sense.

    All that is need is a theoretical observer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    I think that what we perceive as time is a result of matching the rate that our brain takes snapshots at to the need to comprehend things at a certain rate. If, in between each snapshot, we let more of the reaction go past, everything around us would seem to happen a lot faster. If, in between each snapshot, we let less of the reaction go past, everything around us would seem to happen a lot slower. I believe we have evolved to have time happen for us at the optimum rate. I believe that other living creatures on this planet would have different perceptions of time. Time would go slower for small spiders, flies, etc.

    Time is not external, it’s not a force or something physical that affects us. Time is the rate that we eternally comprehend the reaction around us. Living creatures dictate what rate we see the reaction around us happening. We will be able to slow down or fasten up our perception of time genetically one day the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    If you could imagine that you are the only living thing in the universe and your sitting on the moon. You would see the earth rotate every 24 hrs while you circle around the earth every 28 days. If suddenly you didn't exist either, would the time it takes for the earth to rotate still be the same? Would there be such thing as an "hour"?

    You see what I'm getting at? Time is merly the rate that we observe things at. The reaction would still happen. The "rate of reaction" in different locations in space would still vary relative to each other.
    Arguably, without an observer nothing would happen;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
    And his first attempt at mathematics matches all of his attempts at physics -- completely and utterly out to lunch.

    The mathematics of the Lorentz transform comes from preservation of the Minkowski inner product -- a decidedly non-Euclidean construct. The Pythagorean theorem hold in Euclidean spaces and only in Euclidean spaces.

    For a very nice treatment of special relativity from a geometric point of view see Gregory Naber's The Geometry of Minkowski Spacetime: An Introduction to the Mathematics of the Special Theory of Relativity .

    What we have in Farsight is a pitiful crank who craves recognition as a legitimate scientist. Nothing could be farther removed from reality. He has no training in and no understanding of physics. His underestanding of mathematics is less than zero. He is, unfortunately, a menace to young people who wish to learn real science.
    That is definitely true, but to be fair: Farsight is correct in saying that the Lorentz factor is equivalent to using the Pythagorean theorem in the described manner, except that it is almost certainly not the starting point from which Lorentz started when he came up with it.



    The first part describes how you would calculate the ratio between the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle and the opposite leg. IE. if the hypotenuse's length (C) were 5, and the adjacent leg's length (V) were 4, the equation would yield the correct ratio of 5/3 for the relationship between the hypotenuse and the opposite leg (which must have a length of 3).

    The example given in my "Introduction to Modern Physics" class, of a clock that counts time by sending beams of light back and forth across a vertical distance also works on the basis of the application of the Pythagorean theorem, where the increase in the horizontal distance it has to traverse in order to meet up with its target located at a fixed vertical distance away from it increases proportionally to the hypotenuse of a right triangle formed by the two distances. That may just be meant as an aid to help students understand, but it is still being formally taught by a physics professor out of an approved text book, so it's a good idea to be careful how you attack it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    I think that what we perceive as time is a result of matching the rate that our brain takes snapshots at to the need to comprehend things at a certain rate. If, in between each snapshot, we let more of the reaction go past, everything around us would seem to happen a lot faster. If, in between each snapshot, we let less of the reaction go past, everything around us would seem to happen a lot slower. I believe we have evolved to have time happen for us at the optimum rate. I believe that other living creatures on this planet would have different perceptions of time. Time would go slower for small spiders, flies, etc.

    Time is not external, it’s not a force or something physical that affects us. Time is the rate that we eternally comprehend the reaction around us. Living creatures dictate what rate we see the reaction around us happening. We will be able to slow down or fasten up our perception of time genetically one day the future.
    I think you're using different words to describe the same concepts normal physicists normally describe. That's a good way to get started learning physics, but sooner or later you will have to learn the field's correct "jargon" if you want to be able to communicate effectively.

    I agree that if our brains operated faster the world around us would appear to go slower. I've heard that people who take amphetamine (or "speed") experience that effect, of the whole world appearing to slow down around them. Time, just like distance, is a matter of perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Does time really exist? (Yes I'm aware the next sentence answers my own question, but I'm looking for something not invented...)

    I know humans invented time as a measurement, but I still find the subject foggy.

    We have "before", "NOW" and "next" - but does "before" still exist or does it become another "NOW" for someone else in another existence - perhaps in a different dimension?

    Is it possible that each "NOW" splits off and creates a new reality - like a river branching out and creating new rivers, or each branch of a tree sprouting multiple new branches (hope this makes sense!)?

    Looking forward to some interesting answers!

    Rich.
    The reality part is that the "before" caused the "now", and the "now" is expected to cause the "next". Any system where the causality followed a different pattern than that would be moving backwards in time also. (Or perhaps stationary, if simultaneous events were causing each other.)

    It's the fact that things cause other things that requires us to observe time as a reality. Otherwise we wouldn't know how to relate events to each other.

    (edited spelling)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    [
    That is definitely true, but to be fair: Farsight is correct in saying that the Lorentz factor is equivalent to using the Pythagorean theorem in the described manner, except that it is almost certainly not the starting point from which Lorentz started when he came up with it.



    The first part describes how you would calculate the ratio between the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle and the opposite leg. IE. if the hypotenuse's length (C) were 5, and the adjacent leg's length (V) were 4, the equation would yield the correct ratio of 5/3 for the relationship between the hypotenuse and the opposite leg (which must have a length of 3).

    The example given in my "Introduction to Modern Physics" class, of a clock that counts time by sending beams of light back and forth across a vertical distance also works on the basis of the application of the Pythagorean theorem, where the increase in the horizontal distance it has to traverse in order to meet up with its target located at a fixed vertical distance away from it increases proportionally to the hypotenuse of a right triangle formed by the two distances. That may just be meant as an aid to help students understand, but it is still being formally taught by a physics professor out of an approved text book, so it's a good idea to be careful how you attack it.
    You may have a useful mnemonic device, but the Lorentz transformation has nothing to do with the Pythagorean theorem. The Minkowski metric that determines the Lorentz transforms is not even positive-definite. It can return negative numbers for the inner product of two vectors. Minkowski space, which is where the Lorentz transformations exist, is not a Euclidean space.

    Don't believe all of the mathematics, or even physics, that you see in physics books. In Zee's quantum field theory book he waves his arms and evaluates, by a totally invalid argument, an integral that does not even exist, except in a principle value sense of dubious physical meaning. I have seen in otheer texts statements regarding convergence of Fourier series that are just plain false. Be skeptical.

    The "approved" label impresses me not at all. What counts is whether the contents are logically consistent and correct. Lots of books have errors. Even Feynman goofed in the original edition of The Feynman Lectures on Physics when he stated that a charge inside a conducting sphere could create no field external to the sphere (that requires the sphere to be grounded and is noted in recent corrected editions).

    Math books are not immune. In Naimark's original Normed Rings there was a chapter dedicated to the Tomita decomposition theory for Hilbert space operators. The theory was wrong and the chapter disapeared in later revisions of the book, now retitled to Normed Algebras.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    No, the witness doesn’t have to be intelligent, it can be any living thing that relies on seeing the reaction at a rate.

    Yes, I am saying that the whole of history happened instantaneously. Something didn’t have to evolve to “perceive” time. Time was created when a being started “observing the reaction at a rate”. The rate in which we observe the reaction is constant because there is a mechanism within our brains that ticks over every time an equal and precise amount of the reaction takes place and then takes a snapshot. Resulting in us witnessing the reaction at a certain rate (time).
    So, if we have observational evidence of time dependent interactions in the early universe, we must assume life existed back then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Xan
    Xan is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    20
    I thought that after the discovery of cells and atoms that time would be thrown out the window because in my view, time is not exactly in existance it is just the movement and chemical reactions of other molecules, organisms and objects. you know what im saying? i hope so lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think it's fair to say that matter doesn't travel through time. Information does. Matter simultaneously exists at all times. It occupies a finite space but not necessarily a finite time. (If the conservation of matter/energy is true, then all matter/energy lasts forever.) Different states of matter that contain different types of information appear and disappear. We could also call them "Events" which is what a 4 dimensional point in Minkowski (4d) space is called. In 3D space we would call it an object or location.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Matter simultaneously exists at all times.
    What in the hell could that possiblt mean ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    In retrospect, it might have been a poor choice of words. I think what I'm trying to say is that matter does not have a specific time coordinate. Only events have time coordinates.

    Most of the atoms that make up a person's body have been around a long, long time. Way before they were born. They weren't part of a human body for most of that duration, but they existed. A (stable) atom doesn't depart from 1986 and arrive in 1987. It stays in 1986, and stays in 1987 both. However, if the person who's body has that atom in it were to die in 1986, the person would stay in 1986. The status of being part of a human body is an event. It began at a certain time and it will end at a certain time. Also people change over time, so our past selves stay in the time they last existed.

    Technically, an atom still has an event aspect to it because the matter/energy that composes it may not always take the form of an atom. It could change. So, the state of being an atom is still an event, but the matter/energy is not an event. States of being can travel through time, but matter just plain permeates it. It's sort of like how the Pacific Ocean doesn't travel from California to China. ... and yet somehow I still feel like I'm talking nonsense. I'll try harder.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore Eleven's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dallas,TX
    Posts
    140
    However, if the person who's body has that atom in it were to die in 1986, the person would stay in 1986.
    You are in 1986

    LOL
    Always take hold of things by the smooth handle.

    An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.

    Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Forgive the interjection, but isn't a light-year a measure of distance? So what does "the universe has been going for" mean in this context?
    Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Yes, a light year is a measure of distance. But a year is a measure of time derived from the motion of the earth round the sun. So you could derive a measure of time using the motion of light through space - when light has moved 9.4605284 × 10^15 m you could say "that's a year". This relates to the way c is a conversion factor between our measure of distance and our measure of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    And what if my grandfather clock and my quartz watch display different "times"? Which is showing the "correct" time?
    The one that agrees with the master clock that is deemed to be showing the "correct" time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    {It} always comes back to the motion of light.
    Leaving aside (or not) that the concept "motion of light" is at best nebulous and at second best meaningless...
    It isn't nebulous or meaningless. Light moves, we can see that it does. You can't say the same about time flowing. That's nebulous and meaningless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    ...what on earth would your so-called "motion of light" have to do with the fact that I am content to sleep, eat and awake according to the settings of the the hands on my grandfather clock rather than than of my quartz watch, say?
    Nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    The mathematics of the Lorentz factor is straightforward, being based on Pythagoras' theorem. The hypotenuse is the light path where c=1 in natural units, the base is your speed as a fraction of c, and the height is the Lorentz factor with a reciprocal to distinguish time dilation from length contraction.
    Wow! Pure magic! And like most magic, it intends to deceive (readers note that the above is more than wrong; it is Farsight's first known attempt at mathematics, and bzzzt - fail! )
    It isn't wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarist
    Farsight, please do not post on subjects you seem to know nothing about. Also please and pleaser, do not proselytize, even to those us us (I include myself) whose knowledge of theoretical physics is rudimentary
    Go check out Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity and note where it says Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Thank you for pointing out when someone is incorrect. It's really difficult to distinguish between fact and nonsense when you have very little knowledge of a subject.
    I'm not incorrect, Rick. See my previous post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Sorry to be slow getting back to you. Yes, a light year is a measure of distance. But a year is a measure of time derived from the motion of the earth round the sun. So you could derive a measure of time using the motion of light through space - when light has moved 9.4605284 × 10^15 m you could say "that's a year". This relates to the way c is a conversion factor between our measure of distance and our measure of time.
    That would be great, except that it obviously breaks down at the large scales of the universe. The visible universe is about 13 billion years old and had a radius of about 46 billion light years (last I checked). So there isn't a clear conversion rate between spacial distance and time through the speed of light.
    It isn't nebulous or meaningless. Light moves, we can see that it does. You can't say the same about time flowing. That's nebulous and meaningless.
    Just because it is meaningless to say that time flows does not make any given theory of time correct. Serious scholars of time do not use "the flow of time" as a technical term. It is a straw man to attack this position.

    Similarly, it is mistaken to say that we see that light moves. We infer that light moves from experiments that we do, mostly by interfering with light sources and images at different times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Eleven
    However, if the person who's body has that atom in it were to die in 1986, the person would stay in 1986.
    You are in 1986

    LOL
    Sorry, I got all thinking about Back to the Future, which is set in 1985.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_future
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    [
    That is definitely true, but to be fair: Farsight is correct in saying that the Lorentz factor is equivalent to using the Pythagorean theorem in the described manner, except that it is almost certainly not the starting point from which Lorentz started when he came up with it.



    The first part describes how you would calculate the ratio between the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle and the opposite leg. IE. if the hypotenuse's length (C) were 5, and the adjacent leg's length (V) were 4, the equation would yield the correct ratio of 5/3 for the relationship between the hypotenuse and the opposite leg (which must have a length of 3).

    The example given in my "Introduction to Modern Physics" class, of a clock that counts time by sending beams of light back and forth across a vertical distance also works on the basis of the application of the Pythagorean theorem, where the increase in the horizontal distance it has to traverse in order to meet up with its target located at a fixed vertical distance away from it increases proportionally to the hypotenuse of a right triangle formed by the two distances. That may just be meant as an aid to help students understand, but it is still being formally taught by a physics professor out of an approved text book, so it's a good idea to be careful how you attack it.
    You may have a useful mnemonic device, but the Lorentz transformation has nothing to do with the Pythagorean theorem. The Minkowski metric that determines the Lorentz transforms is not even positive-definite. It can return negative numbers for the inner product of two vectors. Minkowski space, which is where the Lorentz transformations exist, is not a Euclidean space.

    Don't believe all of the mathematics, or even physics, that you see in physics books. In Zee's quantum field theory book he waves his arms and evaluates, by a totally invalid argument, an integral that does not even exist, except in a principle value sense of dubious physical meaning. I have seen in otheer texts statements regarding convergence of Fourier series that are just plain false. Be skeptical.

    The "approved" label impresses me not at all. What counts is whether the contents are logically consistent and correct. Lots of books have errors. Even Feynman goofed in the original edition of The Feynman Lectures on Physics when he stated that a charge inside a conducting sphere could create no field external to the sphere (that requires the sphere to be grounded and is noted in recent corrected editions).

    Math books are not immune. In Naimark's original Normed Rings there was a chapter dedicated to the Tomita decomposition theory for Hilbert space operators. The theory was wrong and the chapter disapeared in later revisions of the book, now retitled to Normed Algebras.
    I am impressed with your large above.

    Therefore, do you understand dt'/dt < 0 is possible?

    I have the calculus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickz2020
    Thank you for pointing out when someone is incorrect. It's really difficult to distinguish between fact and nonsense when you have very little knowledge of a subject.
    I'm not incorrect, Rick. See my previous post.
    You are both incorrect and delusional in believing otherwise. Not a good combination, but very common among internet cranks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61 Re: Does time really exist? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I am impressed with your large above.

    Therefore, do you understand dt'/dt < 0 is possible?

    I have the calculus.
    No, you don't. You just think that you do. You are even crazier than Farsight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I am impressed with your large above.

    Therefore, do you understand dt'/dt < 0 is possible?

    I have the calculus.
    No, you don't. You just think that you do. You are even crazier than Farsight.
    Yea, I assume you understand what these folks would consider advanced math.

    Here is the math proof.

    http://freepdfhosting.com/23a2424bf6.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I am impressed with your large above.
    Is that similar to a large behind, only located above the navel?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I am impressed with your large above.
    Is that similar to a large behind, only located above the navel?
    I get it, this is supposed to be a joke. You just be proud of yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65 Re: Does time really exist? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    I am impressed with your large above.
    Is that similar to a large behind, only located above the navel?
    I get it, this is supposed to be a joke. You just be proud of yourself.
    It is most certainly a joke. This should not be open to dispute. Whether or not is is a good joke is quite a different matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    8
    "I think you're using different words to describe the same concepts normal physicists normally describe. That's a good way to get started learning physics, but sooner or later you will have to learn the field's correct "jargon" if you want to be able to communicate effectively.

    I agree that if our brains operated faster the world around us would appear to go slower. I've heard that people who take amphetamine (or "speed") experience that effect, of the whole world appearing to slow down around them. Time, just like distance, is a matter of perspective. "

    I think your absolutely correct. Thanks Kojax.

    I would love to do a degree in Physics. Maybe one day.

    I can get my head around time being a matter of perspective, but not distance. Is there any material you can refer me to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    I can get my head around time being a matter of perspective, but not distance. Is there any material you can refer me to?
    Any book on special relativity:An Introduction to Special Relativity by Rindler or The Geometry of Minkowski Spacetime by Naber would do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Johnsonator
    I can get my head around time being a matter of perspective, but not distance. Is there any material you can refer me to?
    These flash animations may offer some guidance:

    http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/P...hContract.html

    http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/P...Invisible.html

    http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/G...ultaneity.html



    Many more pretty awesome physics demos here: http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/Flash/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •