The nature of time

[lawcat]

You would agree that something absolutely exists? Certainly, absolute nothing can not exist, otherwise it would be something and not nothing. So let's turn away from time and consider what fundamentally exists. Would you agree that fundamentally physical information exists? Physical information - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[REASON]

Your definition of time indicates, to me, that time, is not an principal quality of our universe, as it needs values to be "known", which indicates the presence of a sentient being(man). No man, no time! This sound like time could be a human construct.

 

A "kilometer" is a human constructed measurement, agreed? If there were no humans, would the distance that is a kilometer therefore not exist in our 3D world?

 

A distance from point A to point B exists in the universe independent of any sentient being's ability to measure it. Thus it is the same with time.

[phision]

A "kilometer" is a human constructed measurement, agreed? If there were no humans, would the distance that is a kilometer therefore not exist in our 3D world?.

Your confusing units of measurement with the quantity being measured!

A distance from point A to point B exists in the universe independent of any sentient being's ability to measure it. Thus it is the same with time.

 

While I agree that distance does exist, I'm not in agreement that time can be treated the same way! Time may not exist at all.:rolleyes:

[Pyrotex]

I would say, ... No man, no time! This sound like time could be a human construct. ...

Incorrect by simple inspection.

 

The attribute or property that we call "time" does not care what we CALL IT.

It still exists as a real attribute or property of the universe.

Whenever we do geological research, we find hard evidence for the passage of time, even when the passage of time occurred long before humans or human language.

 

Sometimes, a "thing" comes into existence only when we name it.

 

Sometimes, we name a thing that existed independently of us for eons upon eons.

 

Do not confuse the two.

[phision]

The attribute or property that we call "time" does not care what we CALL IT.

It still exists as a real attribute or property of the universe.

If time is a "real attribute" of the universe why can't it be measured!

So far humans have only compared things by counting how many changes occur. Whether it be the light and dark changes which define a day or the more frequent changes in energy levels of caesium atoms used in atomic clocks.

Whenever we do geological research, we find hard evidence for the passage of time, even when the passage of time occurred long before humans or human language.

The only evidence found, is that of change, not time.:phones:

Sometimes, a "thing" comes into existence only when we name it..

Things that only exist in name, are illusions.:rolleyes:

 

Sometimes, we name a thing that existed independently of us for eons upon eons..

Things that existed independently of us, are a more appropriate candiates for a real attributes and properties of the universe.:cheer:

 

Do not confuse the two.

[Pyrotex]

If time is a "real attribute" of the universe why can't it be measured!...

Now, you're just being silly and fatuous.

 

We measure time, all the time.

[coldcreation]

...and very precisely too: Today's caesium clocks measure time to an accuracy of 1 in 10^15, or 1 second in about 30 million years.

 

"For instance, the outer electrons of a caesium-133 atom resonate between two energy states exactly 9,192,631,770 times each second, emitting microwaves of exactly that frequency as they do so. This property has been used since 1967 to define what we mean by 1 second - it is officially the time it takes for a caesium atom to resonate 9,192,631,770 times."

 

Elements being looked at to make more accurate clocks in the future include ytterbium, mercury and strontium (which resonates 429,228,004,229,952 times each second).

 

 

 

 

CC

[REASON]

Your confusing units of measurement with the quantity being measured!

Uh, no I'm not. A quantity being measured is comprised of units of measurement, which may in fact be 1. The point I was making is that there are inherent characteristics of our universe that do not require human definition to exist. The fact that change is observable proves the existance of time because time is required for change to occur. The two go hand-in-hand. As it has already be pointed out, that's why it is known as a spacetime continuum.

 

 

While I agree that distance does exist, I'm not in agreement that time can be treated the same way! Time may not exist at all.:wink:

 

The units of time that measure change are defined by humans in the same way that units of distance are defined by humans. But you can't point to a kilometer any more than you can point to a minute, so if that's what you think it requires for something to exist then there is neither time nor distance.....there is nothing. Clearly, that is not the case.

 

Distance without a temporal component is known as Euclidean space in mathematics, but a temporal component is required in spacetime. What we've done is attempted to define static units of measurement for both time and space that provide predictable results for each. In science, that may be all that is necessary to prove their existance.

[jedaisoul]

What is the proof for the existence of time, or is it merely implied? please let me know?

I've scanned the thread and I cannot see the point I'd like to make has been aired. So my apologies if this is a repetition:

 

Time and change are not the same thing. Change requires time to happen. I.e. If "now" was an infinitely short period of time, or did not exist at all, how could change happen? It can't.

 

But change does not require the past and future to be real. All that it requires is a moment of time to be real, or more precisely, a plank time. This is thought to be the shortest period of time in which the smallest change can occur.

 

So there is no requirement for time, as a dimension, either in its own right or as a part of spacetime, to exist, and I would suggest it is imaginary.

 

I acknowledge that this is not proof that time exists, I do not think that such proof is possible. But I hope that the case for time, in the sense of one moment, to be real is coherent.

[Pyrotex]

I did some light reading in this area, specifically Discover Magazine, April 2010, starting page 33, "Who Wrote the Book of Physics?" It relates the conclusions of Andreas Albrecht, Lee Smolin and other physicists who have tackled this problem of time. But they are all agreed, even the dissenters and the skeptics: time is an inherent part of our universe, and change is the "essence" of time.

 

Another article in the same magazine posits the possibility that change in our universe may be dictated not only by events of the past, but also events of the future. This leads to the possibility that quantum mechanics may become deterministic in its predictions. Wow. But time would still be an inherent part of our universe.

 

The essence of time (change) can be deduced from the fact that our universe has laws (rules of behavior) that:

1. permit each particle to have an "energy state", a combination of its momentum (speed of the pendulum) and its potential (the height of the pendulum).

2. differing energy states between nearby particles can create forces.

3. these forces can easily overwhelm the static forces that hold particles together.

4. these forces can themselves alter the energy states of other particles.

 

This basically means that particles are gonna MOVE. Some particles will gain momentum, others will lose it, particles will collide, particles will stick, energy states will rise and fall, energy itself will transform from one manifestation (kinetic) to another (thermal), and this is the very definition of change.

 

And in all those different kinds of change, we humans have observed and selected certain specific changes in certain systems which appear to happen at a constant "rate"--i.e., the next change that will occur in the system will be commensurate (equal in measure) with the change that just occurred.

 

And we use these kinds of systems to "measure" time. Actually to measure change, the essence of time. The bottom line is, it's the same either way.

[Doctordick]

Pyrotex, please don't take any offense at my post. I only make this post because I have read many of your posts and feel you are a rather rational person. I have hopes you might understand my reaction to your opinion concerning what does and doesn't exist. I have a subscription to Discover Magazine and read every issue. My reaction to the articles you mention is considerably different from yours.

I did some light reading in this area, specifically Discover Magazine, April 2010, starting page 33, "Who Wrote the Book of Physics?" It relates the conclusions of Andreas Albrecht, Lee Smolin and other physicists who have tackled this problem of time. But they are all agreed, even the dissenters and the skeptics: time is an inherent part of our universe, and change is the "essence" of time.

The question arises in my head as to what “ an inherent part of our universe” means. If one means, “an inherent part of any conceivable explanation of our universe”, I would tend to agree; however, without that phrase, it seems to me it is an undefendable presumption, not a scientific conclusion. It appears to me that you are reacting to authority and not really thinking about the issues being presented.

Another article in the same magazine posits the possibility that change in our universe may be dictated not only by events of the past, but also events of the future.

Again, this statement is made without defining time (and I am not referring to you, I am referring to the Discover article itself). The definition of time is presumed to be known: i.e., the way I see it is that the definition is taken to be established by that emotional conviction one achieves during the first year of their life, an unquestionable intuitive concept. I would like to know what fault you find with my definition, “the past is what you have experienced, the future is what you have not experienced and the present is what you experience as a change in your past”.

This leads to the possibility that quantum mechanics may become deterministic in its predictions.

This appears to assert that quantum mechanics is a fundamental truth; something outside human creation. Perhaps something put forth late in your life but nonetheless, if it is presumed to be an inherent part of the universe, that would be an emotional conviction of an intuitive concept.

And in all those different kinds of change, we humans have observed and selected certain specific changes in certain systems which appear to happen at a constant "rate"--i.e., the next change that will occur in the system will be commensurate (equal in measure) with the change that just occurred.

That is, you (and all of us) have identified and taken notice of repetitive experiences and come up with explanations of those experiences. In essence, isn't that identical to the problems presented in many intelligent tests: sequences of numbers where one is to decide what the next number is supposed to be?

 

Any mathematician knows that one can come up with a rule which will explain any given sequence together with any specific new number. That is why we have the principal of “Occam's razor” which Newton restated as, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

 

I have put forth an explanation of those “laws of physics” which rests merely upon “internal consistency”.

 

1. Do you not admit that, “any acceptable explanation must be internally consistent” is a required fact?

 

2. If I have indeed shown that the very same statement is sufficient to explain those laws, haven't I essentially shown that your assertion concerning those “laws of physics” is overstepping Occam's razor by a considerable margin?

 

Or are you asserting that there is an error in my presentation?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex, please don't take any offense at my post. I only make this post because I have read many of your posts and feel you are a rather rational person.

Okay, THAT was your first mistake! :naughty: Me? Rational? :lol:

The question arises in my head as to what “ an inherent part of our universe” means. If one means, “an inherent part of any conceivable explanation of our universe”, I would tend to agree;

After due consideration, it is obvious that you are correct. Or at least, you have a valid point that appears unassailable.

however, without that phrase, it seems to me it is an undefendable presumption, not a scientific conclusion.

True.

Again, this statement is made without defining time...the Discover article itself.

True.

...what fault you find with my definition, “the past is what you have experienced, the future is what you have not experienced and the present is what you experience as a change in your past”.

Hmmm... well... the only thing I see is that "change" is now the undefined aspect, rather than "time". You say a "change in the past". That would be something like an increment or differential of Past, dP. This then begs the definition of: dP/dT, the Rate of change of the Past, where dT is a differential of... what? Time? Human experience? I dunno... You tell me?

... I have put forth an explanation of those “laws of physics” which rests merely upon “internal consistency”.

 

1. Do you not admit that, “any acceptable explanation must be internally consistent” is a required fact?

 

2. If I have indeed shown that the very same statement is sufficient to explain those laws, haven't I essentially shown that your assertion concerning those “laws of physics” is overstepping Occam's razor by a considerable margin?

#1. == Yes, absolutely. Any two valid paths through physical law, math and logic must arrive at the same conclusion with the same answer. Yep.

 

#2. == Well, you have to consider the Source: Discover Magazine. These are the same folks who broadcast an hour of "How The Earth Was Created" and then follow that with "Ghost Hunters" -- with no warning that the latter is for entertainment only. :lol: I shared what the Magazine had to say, but I can't say that I took it as gospel. Your criticisms are well taken. If you look closely, you can see several instances where the magazine article quietly assumes some (unstated) premise(s) which it uses to reach some conclusion.

 

It appears that I should avail myself of your hard work and erudition and go look up that thread wherein you purport to explain the laws of nature based on internal consistency. Sounds interesting.

 

Thanks for the Reality Call. :)

[Doctordick]

Hi Pyrotex, I have utterly no argument with anything you say except for one small issue. You are failing to comprehend a subtle aspect of my definition of time.

Hmmm... well... the only thing I see is that "change" is now the undefined aspect, rather than "time". You say a "change in the past".

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

That would be something like an increment or differential of Past, dP.

No, it does not! You are proceeding as if my definition of time is identical to your intuitive concept of time which it is not. Before you can talk about a “change in the past” you must be careful to make sure you understand exactly what “the past” is. I have defined the past to be “what you know, presume you know or perhaps what you think you know”. This constitutes the underlying information upon which your world view is built. (As Anssi has commented, we actually have no idea as to exactly what this is; it is defined only under the presumption that our world view is valid.)

 

What is important, in my paradigm, is that, what ever it is, it is what stands behind our world view. It is the information we are using: “what we know”. As an example somewhat analogous to this, think about solving a problem on an intelligence test, one of those series of numbers things. You are given a set of numbers and asked what the next number should be. That is a simple problem for you to solve. So you come up with a rule which you think will tell you what the next number is. Now, suppose you were given one or two more numbers. How would you take into account of that fact in your rule? That is to say, what you know has now changed. Something that you did not know (what I have labeled as “the future”) has been transformed into something you know (what I have labeled as “the past”). Yet there is no “differential” there! A differential is a mathematical concept arising from the concept of a continuous variable.

 

The continuity of time is a pretty serious presumption and the defense of its universal applicability should be worked out carefully. I am in the process of writing out my proof of my fundamental equation (which does indeed establish the necessity of making t a continuous variable) in a rather simple form and I will post it when I finish. I would be very interested in your taking a close look at it. Currently I am using my wife as a sounding board; if she says she understands it, I am presuming my verbal expressions are not confusing (confusing seems to be my major problem). I would appreciate any rational comments concerning the clarity of that presentation when I post it.

 

Other than that complaint, as I said, I have no argument whatsoever with your reaction and appreciate your thoughtful interest. Your posts are a refreshing breeze compared to those of Rade, lawcat, coldcreation and IDMclean who strike me as bible thumping religious fanatics (unquestioned faith in the physics academies absolute infallibility).

Have fun -- Dick

[Rade]

POST # 45....I would like to know what fault you find with my definition [OF TIME], “the past is what you have experienced, the future is what you have not experienced and the present is what you experience as a change in your past”

 

POST # 47....you must be careful to make sure you understand exactly what “the past” is. I have defined the past to be “what you know, presume you know or perhaps what you think you know”

Well, so much for being careful and providing exact definitions to help with understanding---I do wonder how many other definitions of "the past" exist in the many posts of DD ? :( Seems like exactness of definition is a floating abstraction in the mind of DD--I mean--how can a fundamental definition of what one is talking about change after only two posts in a thread ?:naughty:

 

Not sure about others, but I "experience" lots of events that I make no claim to "know", "presume to know", "think I know". :shrug: I would be a poor person if I had to give 1$ each time somebody asked me a why question about an event and I answered, "I don't know". And, the next moment after I experience events they become part of my past--I should think all reading this would agree with that claim. :)

 

Some would argue that we cannot even make claim that any event we experience really exists, let alone that we know the event (take for example the state wavefunction of the electron--does it really exist before the measurement, and, do we know it after the measurement ?)

 

Why is any of this important ? Because DD has informed this forum many times that one way to falsify his Fundamental Equation was to show logically that his argument (which he said was "not a theory", but a "logical deductive conclusion") is based on a false premise.:eek2:

 

As DD tells us in his own words above, the "past" under one definition for each individual human is what they have "experienced" (which Webster informs is..all that has happened to one; everything that one has seen or done). But, under another definition of the "past", all that anyone has experienced in the past is limited by "knowledge". Thus, if there is anything in your past that "is not known, presumed to be known, thought to be known"--it is not part of the past. However, everyone reading this thread has clear recall of many, many, many, many events of past experiences that they would not hold to be known, presumed to be known, or thought to be known.

 

The deductive conclusion of DD is thus based on a logical false premise. :eek2: Now, this does not mean that his Fundamental Equation is incorrect--it means that his definition of time is incorrect. :naughty:

 

As I have mentioned to DD many times, and the reason he has banned me from his computer because he has no answer, DD cannot use his definition(s) of the "past" until he defines "to know", and compares that definition to "to believe" and to "science". :naughty:Of course, DD will never do this, because he is smart enough to realize that if he did, his "deductive conclusion" could not be logically developed. :eek:

 

==

 

Here is a different definition of the "past" than provided by DD that has proper relationship to time::)

 

"past" = something that has gone before. :Bump2:

 

See that this definition of the past has nothing at all to do with "what you know" about the some thing. Thus,

 

"future" = something that has yet to come. :Bump2: Thus,

 

"present" = where the future is transformed into the past (within the moment)

 

And, what is very interesting, the Fundamental Equation of DD works perfectly using these definitions, as I have informed him, but which he refused to put into his past.

[prometheuspan]

time is the illusion of uni directionality caused by quantum interactions and entropy which in turn are created by exclusivity in the permeability of the local brane structure.

[phision]

time is the illusion of uni directionality...

agreed!

...caused by quantum interactions...

caused by any interaction!:lol:

...and entropy which in turn are created by exclusivity in the permeability of the local brane structure.

The existence of branes is even more abstract than time!:thumbs_up What were you hoping to achieve by referring to them?:dogwalk: Was this an original thought or just an abstract quote?:lightning

[phision]

"present" = where the future is transformed into the past :lightning(within the moment)

The present is the current configuration of energy and matter in the universe.:lol:

 

"past" = something that has gone before. :thumbs_up

The past is a previous configuration of energy and matter in the universe.

 

 

"future" = something that has yet to come. :dogwalk:

The future is configuration of energy and matter which supersedes the present configuration of energy and matter in the universe.:doh: