• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Time, does it really exist?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 Teixeira

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • -1

Posted 23 January 2010 - 11:51 PM


Prof. Antoine Suarez of Zurich univ.(Quantum philosophy department), Switzerland, performed a quantum experiment, where time disappears at the quantum level.
And the question is: why does it seems to exist at the macroscopic level? We need to introduce a variable - time - to explain what happen in the reallity.

Now let´s make an experiment like this: let´s count time not in absolute values, but in relative ones.
For a child of one year, one year is not only one year but it´s all his life, that is: 100% of his life. If the child is 10 years old, one year represents 1/10=0.1, 10% of his life. For someone with 100 years, one year means 1% of his life. The mathematical model for this situation is something like: y = 1/x. What happens if we calculate the limit of the function when x tends to infinite? (that corresponds to the situation of immortality, an infinite amount of time to live). When x tends to infinite, y tends to zero! This mean that for somebody with an infinite amount of time to live, one year represents 0% of his life! What does this mean?? Does this mean that time disappear?

What do you think of the idea?

Edited by Teixeira, 23 January 2010 - 11:53 PM.


#2 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 12:47 AM

Prof. Antoine Suarez of Zurich univ.(Quantum philosophy department), Switzerland, performed a quantum experiment, where time disappears at the quantum level.
And the question is: why does it seems to exist at the macroscopic level? We need to introduce a variable - time - to explain what happen in the reallity.

Now let´s make an experiment like this: let´s count time not in absolute values, but in relative ones.
For a child of one year, one year is not only one year but it´s all his life, that is: 100% of his life. If the child is 10 years old, one year represents 1/10=0.1, 10% of his life. For someone with 100 years, one year means 1% of his life. The mathematical model for this situation is something like: y = 1/x. What happens if we calculate the limit of the function when x tends to infinite? (that corresponds to the situation of immortality, an infinite amount of time to live). When x tends to infinite, y tends to zero! This mean that for somebody with an infinite amount of time to live, one year represents 0% of his life! What does this mean?? Does this mean that time disappear?

What do you think of the idea?

I've been telling people this exact explanation for years. We experience time more slowly as we age because:

o Each month is a smaller percentage of our total existence so far.

o We have fewer and fewer experiences that surprise and enlighten us, therefore we often live on autopilot. For a child, everything is fresh and exciting.

BTW, I just finished another new book in which numerous physicists believe that time is not fundamental -- just a human concept to explain ongoing change around us.

Time as a fundamental quality of nature doesn't even make sense to me anymore. When you eliminate time from nature, suddenly, quirky things like relativity (time slows down as objects move faster) suddenly make a LOT more sense, because time isn't actually slowing down. It was always odd to me that time is relative to every object in the universe, and in a timeless universe, that weirdness evaporates. Time travel paradoxes likewise evaporate. Time fields and particles aren't needed. No time really makes sense it terms of being an extremely elegant solution to so many oddities and problems (like when does the arrow of time only point in one direction -- a problem that has stumped physicists for decades).

#3 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 24 January 2010 - 01:10 AM

So what does this mean?

What happened in the past no longer exist? Still exists and can be visited by those from the future or by those from the even more distant past?

What is the now? Currently happening? Already happened as a past to those from the future? Will happen to those in the past? Can be visited by both the past and future travelers?

And what of the future? Is that one just something that doesn't really yet exist?

When you say time does not exist, what everything that happen inside time become a non-reality when that time is removed or will happen regardless in a time-less universe? Sounds like a God to me.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 01:30 AM

So what does this mean?

What happened in the past no longer exist? Still exists and can be visited by those from the future or by those from the even more distant past?

What is the now? Currently happening? Already happened as a past to those from the future? Will happen to those in the past? Can be visited by both the past and future travelers?

And what of the future? Is that one just something that doesn't really yet exist?

When you say time does not exist, what everything that happen inside time become a non-reality when that time is removed or will happen regardless in a time-less universe? Sounds like a God to me.

Your questions only make sense if time exists. It's VERY HARD to break away from this mindset. There is no past, and there is no future. At least, not in terms of time. Yes, things have happened, and things will happen, but it's all one supremely long NOW. Things change, yes. But, we've created the concept of time to explain change. But, time is not a feature of the universe. For humans, it's a very useful concept, I agree. But, we've made the mistake of thinking that time exists as a fundamental aspect of nature.

I suspect that for most people, this will be an almost impossible concept to get their head around. It took me about a full year to come to terms with it.

#5 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 24 January 2010 - 04:36 AM

So what happened, happened. What's done is done. There is no revisiting it.

There is also no future. There is just something that's about to happen.

The only thing there is, is the here and now.

???

Do the people over at the Hadron Collider know about this? How much did they spend on that thing again?

#6 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 04:58 AM

So what happened, happened. What's done is done. There is no revisiting it.

There is also no future. There is just something that's about to happen.

The only thing there is, is the here and now.

???

Do the people over at the Hadron Collider know about this? How much did they spend on that thing again?

Yes, what has happened has happened, no changing it.

But clearly, you still don't get it. Try reading this book which might explain it better than I do:
In Search of Time: http://is.gd/6UIJ7

The LHC has nothing to do with this--it's going to explore other aspects of nature, such as the Higg's particle.

#7 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 24 January 2010 - 05:05 AM

So what happened, happened. What's done is done. There is no revisiting it.

There is also no future. There is just something that's about to happen.

The only thing there is, is the here and now.

???

Do the people over at the Hadron Collider know about this? How much did they spend on that thing again?

Yes, what has happened has happened, no changing it.

But clearly, you still don't get it. Try reading this book which might explain it better than I do:
In Search of Time: http://is.gd/6UIJ7

The LHC has nothing to do with this--it's going to explore other aspects of nature, such as the Higg's particle.



That is the primary focus yes. The issue of time is also what it aims to deal with later on from the data its going to get. (Source: Elegant Universe, Michiu Kaku)

Thanks for the book. If time really does not exist, then we have to create our own virtual reality of the universe, a galactic matrix and create 'time' so we can travel back and forth in time. Part of the data will come from the memories of the living. Eventually, we can just 'sign off' from the organic biologic life and live inside this new galaxy.

#8 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 24 January 2010 - 06:12 AM

Since the universe started in a low entropy state, and the second law of thermodynamics states that a system of less disorder is likely to go into more disorder, I think time is just the universe from one state of less disorder, into another of more....

Here is a good documentary about the topic: its like 20 minutes



In the fabric of the cosmos, Brian Greene postulates that times arrow is largely due to the fact that the Universe started from a point of extreme order.

#9 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 02:22 PM

Since the universe started in a low entropy state, and the second law of thermodynamics states that a system of less disorder is likely to go into more disorder, I think time is just the universe from one state of less disorder, into another of more....

Here is a good documentary about the topic: its like 20 minutes



In the fabric of the cosmos, Brian Greene postulates that times arrow is largely due to the fact that the Universe started from a point of extreme order.

But the fact that things go from high to low entropy does not mean that time exists. It just means that things tend to change from ordered to disordered. Also, the initial state of the universe was extremely disordered -- a state of homogeneous energy and particles. Gravity is the force that overcomes entropy, and creates order.

#10 Teixeira

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • -1

Posted 24 January 2010 - 02:51 PM

Since the universe started in a low entropy state, and the second law of thermodynamics states that a system of less disorder is likely to go into more disorder, I think time is just the universe from one state of less disorder, into another of more....

Here is a good documentary about the topic: its like 20 minutes



In the fabric of the cosmos, Brian Greene postulates that times arrow is largely due to the fact that the Universe started from a point of extreme order.

But the fact that things go from high to low entropy does not mean that time exists. It just means that things tend to change from ordered to disordered. Also, the initial state of the universe was extremely disordered -- a state of homogeneous energy and particles. Gravity is the force that overcomes entropy, and creates order.

"things go from high to low entropy "
Of course you mean: in a closed system the level of entropy increases. The thermodinamic arrow of time points from less entropy (past) to greater entropy (future).
But when we consider an infinite amount of time to live, it´s obvious that the level of entropy is kept close to zero, and that means that the arrow of time doesn´t work, because entropy do not increase (mathematicaly, the level of entropy tends assimptoticaly to zero), and so all we got is "The eternal present".
(when you have the same level of entropy for t and t + dt, time becames a useless variable since entropy becames a constant).

Edited by Teixeira, 24 January 2010 - 02:53 PM.


#11 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 04:19 PM

Since the universe started in a low entropy state, and the second law of thermodynamics states that a system of less disorder is likely to go into more disorder, I think time is just the universe from one state of less disorder, into another of more....

Here is a good documentary about the topic: its like 20 minutes



In the fabric of the cosmos, Brian Greene postulates that times arrow is largely due to the fact that the Universe started from a point of extreme order.

But the fact that things go from high to low entropy does not mean that time exists. It just means that things tend to change from ordered to disordered. Also, the initial state of the universe was extremely disordered -- a state of homogeneous energy and particles. Gravity is the force that overcomes entropy, and creates order.

"things go from high to low entropy "
Of course you mean: in a closed system the level of entropy increases. The thermodinamic arrow of time points from less entropy (past) to greater entropy (future).
But when we consider an infinite amount of time to live, it´s obvious that the level of entropy is kept close to zero, and that means that the arrow of time doesn´t work, because entropy do not increase (mathematicaly, the level of entropy tends assimptoticaly to zero), and so all we got is "The eternal present".
(when you have the same level of entropy for t and t + dt, time becames a useless variable since entropy becames a constant).

Yes, I meant to say things go from low to high entropy, or low to high disorder.

But, this statement, "when we consider an infinite amount of time to live", is somewhat stated wrong if time in fact is merely a human concept. Change will happen indefinitely, true. But, the universe doesn't have a clock, or a time function. The universe merely evolves according to its rules (rules we do not fully understand yet), and these rules do not have a time function or a time component. When we finally discover the theory of everything, time will not part of the theory.

#12 Neurosail

  • Life Member, F@H
  • 311 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Earth
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2010 - 07:47 PM

I was writing a science fiction story...and I have a question about the first paragraph.

"Space and time are the equivalent prominence. There is no past, no future--just now. The era of yore cannot be altered and the opportunities of tomorrow are yet to be. These are the cold, hard truths confirmed in science. There are no other universes, no parallel dimensions, and no gateways to the unknown. There is only the present, the now, this instant, which is the nature of space-time. The only way to survive into the future is to live perpetually, or to become vitrified intermittently.

A huge starship is about to voyage around the misty shawls of space. As it orbits in a quay within close proximity to the biosphere Valhalla, the passengers disembark the shuttles and enter the focal reception area of the starship Kalevala. One such passenger is Päivikki."

Did I get the first paragraph correct or do I need to delete it? Thanks for your input. I think that "space-time" is only movement and not a dimension.

Also, since space-time is a variable; the faster something travels, the slower time moves, and the universe is quickening its pace, which should imply that "time" is slowing down? If true, how can researchers state that the "Big Bang" happened 14 billion years ago, using a steady-state time-line? :p

I work a lot and don't have "time" to post often, so thank you for any answers.

#13 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 24 January 2010 - 08:48 PM

I was writing a science fiction story...and I have a question about the first paragraph.

"Space and time are the equivalent prominence. There is no past, no future--just now. The era of yore cannot be altered and the opportunities of tomorrow are yet to be. These are the cold, hard truths confirmed in science. There are no other universes, no parallel dimensions, and no gateways to the unknown. There is only the present, the now, this instant, which is the nature of space-time. The only way to survive into the future is to live perpetually, or to become vitrified intermittently.

A huge starship is about to voyage around the misty shawls of space. As it orbits in a quay within close proximity to the biosphere Valhalla, the passengers disembark the shuttles and enter the focal reception area of the starship Kalevala. One such passenger is Päivikki."

Did I get the first paragraph correct or do I need to delete it? Thanks for your input. I think that "space-time" is only movement and not a dimension.

Also, since space-time is a variable; the faster something travels, the slower time moves, and the universe is quickening its pace, which should imply that "time" is slowing down? If true, how can researchers state that the "Big Bang" happened 14 billion years ago, using a steady-state time-line? :p

I work a lot and don't have "time" to post often, so thank you for any answers.

I think your first paragraph is correct. I might suggest one small addition, changing this sentence to add the highlighted word: "There is only the present, the forever now, this instant, which is the nature of space-time..."

#14 medicineman

  • Guest
  • 750 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Kuwait

Posted 24 January 2010 - 10:11 PM

I definitely agree that time does not exist. I am saying that times arrow as it seems to the human mind is as a result of the universe starting from a state of order, to a more disordered state..... This would be the only explanation at present, on why we perceive times arrow as going forward. It is true that the mathematics for theoretical physics show that an egg that fell and broke could go back to a its previous state, but that is obviously not how this world works. Brian Greene gives a great explanation of it in the fabric of the cosmos, and that is where I got the idea that the early universe exhibited a state of low entropy.....

#15 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 January 2010 - 06:40 AM

Problem with "measuring time" with entropy. The second law says entropy *tends* to increase. Another thing if I remember properly was in nature and isolated systems.
So would you say you gone back in time in some of those moments where it decreases? And it does happen, just as far as we know not at the majority.

I am not so sure what's so hard about thinking time does not exist, ever since I been introduced to time dilation fields in sci-fi I thought "wait, but it's not time". We know that if you are moving really fast your mass increase, or there is a gravity field. Then you need more energy to move but your energy is the same so you move slower. Not only you move slower, your brain functions slower too so your brain is "delayed" but since that is the way you process things your perceive, you should feel as if everything around you moves faster, if it (the brain) is functioning slower. But since everything else moves slower too, you see everything in the field as if it is all moving normally.

So if someone outside of your space craft peaks in and watches you, he sees you moving really slow, but right now. You are not jumping in forward in time. Simple, isn't it?

The cameras inside your ship that recording you and take videos and all move the same as you too because they too function slower. Even the clocks move slower in sync to your speed so it will look normal. But when compared with a clock outside, you find you were all moving slower.

#16 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 January 2010 - 06:48 AM

So what happened, happened. What's done is done. There is no revisiting it.

There is also no future. There is just something that's about to happen.

The only thing there is, is the here and now.

???

Do the people over at the Hadron Collider know about this? How much did they spend on that thing again?

Yes, what has happened has happened, no changing it.

But clearly, you still don't get it. Try reading this book which might explain it better than I do:
In Search of Time: http://is.gd/6UIJ7

The LHC has nothing to do with this--it's going to explore other aspects of nature, such as the Higg's particle.



That is the primary focus yes. The issue of time is also what it aims to deal with later on from the data its going to get. (Source: Elegant Universe, Michiu Kaku)

Thanks for the book. If time really does not exist, then we have to create our own virtual reality of the universe, a galactic matrix and create 'time' so we can travel back and forth in time. Part of the data will come from the memories of the living. Eventually, we can just 'sign off' from the organic biologic life and live inside this new galaxy.


Why are you so obsessed with time travel?
Personally I think that going to the past is mainly useless and if possible then probably REALLY dangerous.
Don't forget if you beat those bully from school (you mentioned in the other thread) it could change your whole process and you won't be the same person.

I think the only use for time travel would be if we could go back in the past and snatch people right before they die to save them the last second.

Also, Virtual Universe. Why? I mean, I could understand connecting to VR for something like the "future's MMO", playing in the World of Warcraft or whatever but feel it real.
But living in there? I think the real world is better to be improved and you need to look after your body and your universe won't just end when you are playing. That would kinda suck.
Once we are advanced enough it will be more fun to find a planet and design it the way you want. With the beings you desire.

Edit: Then again, in both Virtual Reality and designing your planet, if it involves creation of conscious being we will have to ask ourselves, are we allowed to do so? to "play god"? that is not in the religious sense, that is in the sense of "We are super able beings restricting other beings we created", is that right to do? shouldn't we create them as good as we are when we are that far?

Creating a being and allow it to die or even not to die but to suffer or feel pain, is it right for us to decide? One of the reasons I am not sure about having a child one day is this. I can't guarantee its safety and happiness in this world. Especially not in the long term. Giving birth to something that might die.. I think I will have to wait until I am sure it can never die too.

Edited by Luna, 25 January 2010 - 06:52 AM.

  • Disagree x 1

#17 Forever21

  • Guest
  • 1,918 posts
  • 122

Posted 25 January 2010 - 09:39 AM

So what happened, happened. What's done is done. There is no revisiting it.

There is also no future. There is just something that's about to happen.

The only thing there is, is the here and now.

???

Do the people over at the Hadron Collider know about this? How much did they spend on that thing again?

Yes, what has happened has happened, no changing it.

But clearly, you still don't get it. Try reading this book which might explain it better than I do:
In Search of Time: http://is.gd/6UIJ7

The LHC has nothing to do with this--it's going to explore other aspects of nature, such as the Higg's particle.



That is the primary focus yes. The issue of time is also what it aims to deal with later on from the data its going to get. (Source: Elegant Universe, Michiu Kaku)

Thanks for the book. If time really does not exist, then we have to create our own virtual reality of the universe, a galactic matrix and create 'time' so we can travel back and forth in time. Part of the data will come from the memories of the living. Eventually, we can just 'sign off' from the organic biologic life and live inside this new galaxy.


Why are you so obsessed with time travel?
Personally I think that going to the past is mainly useless and if possible then probably REALLY dangerous.
Don't forget if you beat those bully from school (you mentioned in the other thread) it could change your whole process and you won't be the same person.

I think the only use for time travel would be if we could go back in the past and snatch people right before they die to save them the last second.

Also, Virtual Universe. Why? I mean, I could understand connecting to VR for something like the "future's MMO", playing in the World of Warcraft or whatever but feel it real.
But living in there? I think the real world is better to be improved and you need to look after your body and your universe won't just end when you are playing. That would kinda suck.
Once we are advanced enough it will be more fun to find a planet and design it the way you want. With the beings you desire.

Edit: Then again, in both Virtual Reality and designing your planet, if it involves creation of conscious being we will have to ask ourselves, are we allowed to do so? to "play god"? that is not in the religious sense, that is in the sense of "We are super able beings restricting other beings we created", is that right to do? shouldn't we create them as good as we are when we are that far?

Creating a being and allow it to die or even not to die but to suffer or feel pain, is it right for us to decide? One of the reasons I am not sure about having a child one day is this. I can't guarantee its safety and happiness in this world. Especially not in the long term. Giving birth to something that might die.. I think I will have to wait until I am sure it can never die too.


we are gods so we dont "play god".

time travel in my posts is related to elegant universe, michi kaku interpretation which says there are dimensions, multi-verses, not uni-verse. so when i travel to the past and create a change in the future, that future is another dimension. in another universe, i dated anna, in the future universe i am dating carol.

#18 Solve

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • -6

Posted 25 January 2010 - 07:43 PM

Time may not exist.
What may be important is whether an 'artificial time bridge' can be constructed.
Then we can travel to the past an upload the minds of dying humans to a future constructed Virtual Reality.
Thus all beings will achieve immortality.
Maybe!

Solve ;)

Edited by Solve, 25 January 2010 - 07:44 PM.


#19 Infilliono

  • Guest
  • 65 posts
  • 8
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 26 January 2010 - 09:33 AM

You wanna know something crazy about time. Instants are actually infinite. But they are also finite. It's kind of a logical paradox. You can stay in an instant for all eternity theoretically but once you leave that instant and sync up with everybody elses time again that instant is infinitely that deep and its part of the past. This effect is also what determines the speed of light which is actually ever infinitely increasing. E does equal mc squared. But the speed of light is infinitely increasing because instants are determined by let's just call them variables. IT's really anything or anyone that stays in an instant. Once someone has stayed in an instant for lets say a thousand years they have made time that much denser and light that much faster. get it? Try explaining that to a quantum physicist. Losers. LOL

#20 Brain_Ischemia

  • Guest
  • 139 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA
  • NO

Posted 30 January 2010 - 04:22 AM

Prof. Antoine Suarez of Zurich univ.(Quantum philosophy department), Switzerland, performed a quantum experiment, where time disappears at the quantum level.


I'd be very interested in seeing the source...?

Time as a fundamental quality of nature doesn't even make sense to me anymore. When you eliminate time from nature, suddenly, quirky things like relativity (time slows down as objects move faster) suddenly make a LOT more sense


Well, since Special and General Relativity are specifically and heavily focused on the nature of time, they're scientifically meaningless and functionally irrelevant without time. Saying that they make more sense WITHOUT time really is meaningless.

As far as Falk's book, I think you might be mischaracterizing the content;
Falk is discussing the human perception of time; he is NOT in ANY way suggesting the dimension of time described by Einstein and affirmed by physics doesn't exist. Our perceptions of time (i.e. as something that "flows") may certainly be totally and utterly wrong, but that has absolutely zero to do with the physics behind, say, time travel paradoxes (which are called paradoxes by physicists, not necessarily just by people who misunderstand physics).

There is no past, and there is no future. At least, not in terms of time. Yes, things have happened, and things will happen, but it's all one supremely long NOW. Things change, yes. But, we've created the concept of time to explain change. But, time is not a feature of the universe.


I see what you're trying to say, but I would say that technically there is a past and future the same way that one can say he is "here" and point to "there"; past and future exist relative to your current reference point along the axis of time. Semantics maybe, but an important distinction which Einstein apparently glossed over when he made his famous remark about the past and future; they obviously exist relative to your current position in time otherwise there would be no illusion of time's passage in the first place. However, I think you're trying to say that they don't exist the way we think they do, which is what most physicists would say.

You seem to be describing "Block Time" or the "Block Universe", the basic model of the universe derived from Einstein's Classical Physics (which a majority of physicists tend to believe is "the way it is"):
The universe is essentially static, like a giant, self-contained frozen diorama; nothing is actually happening (no, really); time is LITERALLY a dimension akin to length or height. There are spatial changes along the time axis of the universe, but these are like the changes in a printed graph along its X or Y axis- you wouldn't say that the graph is ACTUALLY moving even though you can trace it as it snakes along the X axis. Well, according to the "Block Universe" model, YOU'RE the graph, you just THINK you're moving through the time axis but you're really not. Like the points on the graph, we can put our finger on any point on the time axis and see where you are (or the atoms of which you're comprised); interestingly, if we ask you at ANY point on the time axis is "Is it now?", you'll say "Yes, it is now". Well, of course you'd say that. You thought it was "now" when you started reading this post; in reality the you that first scrolled down to this post is STILL THERE occupying the place in time at which you scrolled the webpage just like you reading these words is always will be where he perceives it is "now".

For some decent summaries of the "block universe":
http://www.ipod.org....ality/index.asp (A fantastic website full of great information geared towards the layperson and amusing speculations about the true nature of reality)
http://www.ipod.org....erious_flow.asp (Scientific American article sums up the block universe concept nicely)

Block Universe isn't the end of the story; many physicists are starting to think less rigidly about time. For example, some take quantum physics to suggest that the block universe *cannot* be an accurate model due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (ie; if our inability to know the future is merely a flaw of the human brain's dependence on entropy, then why do particles act like they're incapable of knowing the future too?). There's some amount research into overturning the Block model completely; time may indeed flow after all. It may be that the passage of time is the accumulation of quantum bits dropping like sand into an hourglass. To use a pun, Time will tell which model is right.

Also, the initial state of the universe was extremely disordered -- a state of homogeneous energy and particles. Gravity is the force that overcomes entropy, and creates order.

Nope, actually the opposite is true.

When we finally discover the theory of everything, time will not part of the theory.

I can't fathom where you could possibly have gotten this idea.


Guys. Time exists. There is no credible or widely respected physicist who claims it doesn't. What many physicists claim doesn't exist is the passage of time; i.e. our traditional concept of time as something which "flows" or "passes".

Edited by Xanthus, 30 January 2010 - 04:32 AM.

  • like x 1

#21 Teixeira

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • -1

Posted 30 January 2010 - 12:50 PM

Prof. Antoine Suarez of Zurich univ.(Quantum philosophy department), Switzerland, performed a quantum experiment, where time disappears at the quantum level.


I'd be very interested in seeing the source...?

Time as a fundamental quality of nature doesn't even make sense to me anymore. When you eliminate time from nature, suddenly, quirky things like relativity (time slows down as objects move faster) suddenly make a LOT more sense


Well, since Special and General Relativity are specifically and heavily focused on the nature of time, they're scientifically meaningless and functionally irrelevant without time. Saying that they make more sense WITHOUT time really is meaningless.

As far as Falk's book, I think you might be mischaracterizing the content;
Falk is discussing the human perception of time; he is NOT in ANY way suggesting the dimension of time described by Einstein and affirmed by physics doesn't exist. Our perceptions of time (i.e. as something that "flows") may certainly be totally and utterly wrong, but that has absolutely zero to do with the physics behind, say, time travel paradoxes (which are called paradoxes by physicists, not necessarily just by people who misunderstand physics).

There is no past, and there is no future. At least, not in terms of time. Yes, things have happened, and things will happen, but it's all one supremely long NOW. Things change, yes. But, we've created the concept of time to explain change. But, time is not a feature of the universe.


I see what you're trying to say, but I would say that technically there is a past and future the same way that one can say he is "here" and point to "there"; past and future exist relative to your current reference point along the axis of time. Semantics maybe, but an important distinction which Einstein apparently glossed over when he made his famous remark about the past and future; they obviously exist relative to your current position in time otherwise there would be no illusion of time's passage in the first place. However, I think you're trying to say that they don't exist the way we think they do, which is what most physicists would say.

You seem to be describing "Block Time" or the "Block Universe", the basic model of the universe derived from Einstein's Classical Physics (which a majority of physicists tend to believe is "the way it is"):
The universe is essentially static, like a giant, self-contained frozen diorama; nothing is actually happening (no, really); time is LITERALLY a dimension akin to length or height. There are spatial changes along the time axis of the universe, but these are like the changes in a printed graph along its X or Y axis- you wouldn't say that the graph is ACTUALLY moving even though you can trace it as it snakes along the X axis. Well, according to the "Block Universe" model, YOU'RE the graph, you just THINK you're moving through the time axis but you're really not. Like the points on the graph, we can put our finger on any point on the time axis and see where you are (or the atoms of which you're comprised); interestingly, if we ask you at ANY point on the time axis is "Is it now?", you'll say "Yes, it is now". Well, of course you'd say that. You thought it was "now" when you started reading this post; in reality the you that first scrolled down to this post is STILL THERE occupying the place in time at which you scrolled the webpage just like you reading these words is always will be where he perceives it is "now".

For some decent summaries of the "block universe":
http://www.ipod.org....ality/index.asp (A fantastic website full of great information geared towards the layperson and amusing speculations about the true nature of reality)
http://www.ipod.org....erious_flow.asp (Scientific American article sums up the block universe concept nicely)

Block Universe isn't the end of the story; many physicists are starting to think less rigidly about time. For example, some take quantum physics to suggest that the block universe *cannot* be an accurate model due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (ie; if our inability to know the future is merely a flaw of the human brain's dependence on entropy, then why do particles act like they're incapable of knowing the future too?). There's some amount research into overturning the Block model completely; time may indeed flow after all. It may be that the passage of time is the accumulation of quantum bits dropping like sand into an hourglass. To use a pun, Time will tell which model is right.

Also, the initial state of the universe was extremely disordered -- a state of homogeneous energy and particles. Gravity is the force that overcomes entropy, and creates order.

Nope, actually the opposite is true.

When we finally discover the theory of everything, time will not part of the theory.

I can't fathom where you could possibly have gotten this idea.


Guys. Time exists. There is no credible or widely respected physicist who claims it doesn't. What many physicists claim doesn't exist is the passage of time; i.e. our traditional concept of time as something which "flows" or "passes".

"I'd be very interested in seeing the source...?"
Ok, here it is: "SCIENCE & VIE", nº 1024, Jan/2003, page 34, "Le Temps N´éxiste Pas"/"L´éxpérience qui a tué le temps".

#22 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 30 January 2010 - 04:26 PM

Guys. Time exists. There is no credible or widely respected physicist who claims it doesn't. What many physicists claim doesn't exist is the passage of time; i.e. our traditional concept of time as something which "flows" or "passes".

In fact, there are too many to list. For example:

Lee Smolin: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lee_Smolin
Roger Penrose: http://en.wikipedia....i/Roger_Penrose
David Deutsch: http://en.wikipedia....i/David_Deutsch
Paul Davies: http://cosmos.asu.edu/
Julian Barbour: http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Barbour
Robert Jaffe: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Robert_Jaffe
James Hartle: http://en.wikipedia....ki/James_Hartle

And the list goes on and on. Unless, of course, you continue to make the absurd claim that none of these physicists are credible. But much more likely, you are not credible.

Edited by DukeNukem, 30 January 2010 - 04:27 PM.


#23 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 January 2010 - 09:16 PM

The only problem I find when I try to tell people that discuss it (rarely happens ^^) is.. and that never happened that I had to explain it btw, it just came to my mind without them asking :D

If I tell them that things don't move in time (forward) but just move through space, someone might ask "then why things don't move instantly" I say "there needs energy to move", the problem is that I find time to be somewhat needed here, it needs that much energy to move that much over time. The energy it had is depleted over time.

Thing is, it doesn't mean time exists but that the concept of time for measuring is required for somethings or the explanation probably need to be improved. Any thoughts?

Edited by Luna, 30 January 2010 - 09:17 PM.


#24 ben951

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 15
  • Location:France

Posted 31 January 2010 - 11:55 AM

Guys. Time exists. There is no credible or widely respected physicist who claims it doesn't. What many physicists claim doesn't exist is the passage of time; i.e. our traditional concept of time as something which "flows" or "passes".

In fact, there are too many to list. For example:

Lee Smolin: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lee_Smolin
Roger Penrose: http://en.wikipedia....i/Roger_Penrose
David Deutsch: http://en.wikipedia....i/David_Deutsch
Paul Davies: http://cosmos.asu.edu/
Julian Barbour: http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Barbour
Robert Jaffe: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Robert_Jaffe
James Hartle: http://en.wikipedia....ki/James_Hartle

And the list goes on and on. Unless, of course, you continue to make the absurd claim that none of these physicists are credible. But much more likely, you are not credible.


I red the first link you gave and I found this sentence from Lee Smolin in the section views:

All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly.

?

Edited by ben951, 31 January 2010 - 11:57 AM.


#25 Recortes

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Madrid, Spain

Posted 31 January 2010 - 01:57 PM

Guys. Time exists. There is no credible or widely respected physicist who claims it doesn't. What many physicists claim doesn't exist is the passage of time; i.e. our traditional concept of time as something which "flows" or "passes".

In fact, there are too many to list. For example:

Lee Smolin: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lee_Smolin
Roger Penrose: http://en.wikipedia....i/Roger_Penrose
David Deutsch: http://en.wikipedia....i/David_Deutsch
Paul Davies: http://cosmos.asu.edu/
Julian Barbour: http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Barbour
Robert Jaffe: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Robert_Jaffe
James Hartle: http://en.wikipedia....ki/James_Hartle

And the list goes on and on. Unless, of course, you continue to make the absurd claim that none of these physicists are credible. But much more likely, you are not credible.

Penrose denying that time exist is a news to me, same with others. If time didn't exist then the sign of the time varible in metrics of General Relativity would be the same as for the spatial variables. That existence of time is assumed to be true all over the Physics, as is proved from its special status in all the evolution equations. Make a test writting down an evolution equation and try to show that 't' is equivalente to 'x'.




The Second Law of Thermodynamics was fomulated for the first time by Clausis more than a century ago, and since then has not been 'changed'. Of course we have had very insightful contribtutions by Planck, Boltzman and others, but  Second Law continues being the same. The irreversibility of the Second Law introduces clearly an arrow of time. This arrow of time, in the form of increase of entropy by irreversible processes, can be used to deduce wonderfully 'true' evolution equations. Undertanding by true the only thing that matters in Physics/Science: the experimental true. 



To the best of my knowledge, no book-seller denying  the existence of time has improved Clausis, so for me they are garbage. I make a lot of fun of those book sellers on how pretencious they are. They guys wake up in the morning, take a shower, have breakfast,  and decide to solve the universe in a 300 pages pocket book. More humble, and brilliant, Clausius and Carnot  were simply worried on understanding the performance of  heat engines.  



I think the problem of all the garbage published nowdays is rooted in the fact that authors take too seriously Bohr/Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. BTW quantum mechanics must assassinate Bohr to advance. They elevate paradoxes derived from our  incomplete comprehension of the physics laws to the cathegory of principles. They remain me to Zenon demonstrating space does not exist because Aquiles could not reach a turtle.  

Edited by Recortes, 31 January 2010 - 02:14 PM.


#26 Recortes

  • Guest
  • 131 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Madrid, Spain

Posted 31 January 2010 - 02:12 PM

But the fact that things go from high to low entropy does not mean that time exists. It just means that things tend to change from ordered to disordered. Also, the initial state of the universe was extremely disordered -- a state of homogeneous energy and particles. Gravity is the force that overcomes entropy, and creates order.

1. An isolated system  evolves from Low to High entropy. Not from high to low. 

2. In the initial state of the universe more likely there was No particles. Matter came later. 

3.  Gravity is NOT the force that overcomes entropy and create order. An astronaute can create order in the Internation Space Station  from the chemical energy stored  in his muscles. No force, gravity, magnetism, electricity, weak and strong nuclear forces,  has any special status in overcoming entropy. 

#27 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 31 January 2010 - 03:17 PM

But the fact that things go from high to low entropy does not mean that time exists. It just means that things tend to change from ordered to disordered. Also, the initial state of the universe was extremely disordered -- a state of homogeneous energy and particles. Gravity is the force that overcomes entropy, and creates order.

1. An isolated system  evolves from Low to High entropy. Not from high to low. 

2. In the initial state of the universe more likely there was No particles. Matter came later. 

3.  Gravity is NOT the force that overcomes entropy and create order. An astronaute can create order in the Internation Space Station  from the chemical energy stored  in his muscles. No force, gravity, magnetism, electricity, weak and strong nuclear forces,  has any special status in overcoming entropy. 

Moments after the big bang the energy in the universe was ordered or disordered?

#28 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 31 January 2010 - 03:26 PM

Guys. Time exists. There is no credible or widely respected physicist who claims it doesn't. What many physicists claim doesn't exist is the passage of time; i.e. our traditional concept of time as something which "flows" or "passes".

In fact, there are too many to list. For example:

Lee Smolin: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lee_Smolin
Roger Penrose: http://en.wikipedia....i/Roger_Penrose
David Deutsch: http://en.wikipedia....i/David_Deutsch
Paul Davies: http://cosmos.asu.edu/
Julian Barbour: http://en.wikipedia..../Julian_Barbour
Robert Jaffe: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Robert_Jaffe
James Hartle: http://en.wikipedia....ki/James_Hartle

And the list goes on and on. Unless, of course, you continue to make the absurd claim that none of these physicists are credible. But much more likely, you are not credible.


I red the first link you gave and I found this sentence from Lee Smolin in the section views:

All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly.

?

Yes, the quote is confusing, but what I think he's saying is that we live in a frozen moment of time. In the book In Search of Time, he says: "We experience the world in time as a succession of moments. But those moments disappear when we represent the world mathematically. I can't conceive of a mathematics that doesn't represent a world as if it were frozen in eternity." BTW, he makes it clear in that book that he believes the flow of time is an illusion.

#29 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 31 January 2010 - 03:35 PM

The only problem I find when I try to tell people that discuss it (rarely happens ^^) is.. and that never happened that I had to explain it btw, it just came to my mind without them asking :D

If I tell them that things don't move in time (forward) but just move through space, someone might ask "then why things don't move instantly" I say "there needs energy to move", the problem is that I find time to be somewhat needed here, it needs that much energy to move that much over time. The energy it had is depleted over time.

Thing is, it doesn't mean time exists but that the concept of time for measuring is required for somethings or the explanation probably need to be improved. Any thoughts?

Time is an excellent practical concept, but when we say, for example, "wait one hour," what we really mean is "wait for a period of change." It's actually hard to describe a timeless world because we've so well integrated concepts of time into our language. And this reinforces the apparent reality of time to people and physicists alike.

#30 Teixeira

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • -1

Posted 05 February 2010 - 01:57 AM

Time, like we know it, has an important charactheristic: the flux, that is, time goes from the past to the future.
Now let´s see the relation "Cause - Effect". In normal conditions, cause comes first and the effect comes after.

Aspect performed an experiment were the "inegality of Bell" is violated, and that means that the correlation of photons cannot have a cause in the past that explain the behavior of the photons in the mirror. But there was still a possibility: they "telephone" each-other. And Suarez, introducing movement between the mirrors, has destroyed the possibility of cause-effect at quantum level. So, we have "lost our time". Things happen, but there is no time-flux.

On the other, in rotating black holes (Kerr geometry), between the Exterior event horizon and the Interior event horizon, the time flux is upside-down!It goes from future to the past! (And after the Interior event horizon and before the ring singularity, it goes back to normal again, with flux from past to future).

If we want to complicate this just a little bit, why not consider "Imaginary time?". It had been introduced to solve the problem of instant displacements of particules. We can imagine a real axis of time and a perpendicular imaginary axis of time. A displacement in imaginary time will seem for those wo are in the real axis of time, an instant displacement.

A litle bizarre?
Let me know your ideas about this great confusion on the nature of Time...

Edited by Teixeira, 05 February 2010 - 02:06 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users