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.