Time Does Not Exist

[Maine farmer]

Well, now, getting back to your claim of time not existing, I was thinking about quantum entanglement, and how when you have two quantum entangled particles and change the spin of one, it instantly effects the other, so it would seem that for the particles, time and space are irrelevant

[xyz]

Well, now, getting back to your claim of time not existing, I was thinking about quantum entanglement, and how when you have two quantum entangled particles and change the spin of one, it instantly effects the other, so it would seem that for the particles, time and space are irrelevant

I am not 100% clear of your question, would this still happen if there was no time?  my answer would be yes, having no time would not change anything. 

 

To me, any effects caused by spin change etc, are polarity related in some way, but my knowledge of entanglement is not great, I see light propagating through space to be an entangled whole, constant-'constant. 

[Maine farmer]

With quantum entanglement, as I understand it (or not?), entangled particles seem to be able to relay information without regard to time or space.  One effects the other no matter how far apart they are, and the effect is instant.  In regards to a clock "recording history" as you say, no history would be recorded at either location by any nearby clock.

[xyz]

With quantum entanglement, as I understand it (or not?), entangled particles seem to be able to relay information without regard to time or space.  One effects the other no matter how far apart they are, and the effect is instant.  In regards to a clock "recording history" as you say, no history would be recorded at either location by any nearby clock.

Ok, I have looked at quantum entanglement a bit more, I think I know what you are talking about now.   You are saying something like . Particle A and Particle B are 1000 miles apart, Particle A gains charge and simultaneously affects B .

 

 

I would of thought that there would be a delay in the received affect if light has a speed, and the effect needing ''time'' to travel.  However I do know that sight is instantaneous because of the constant-'constant, so something is telling me ......

 

 

I am not sure, something to do with mirrors maybe, like images are mirrored in a mirror and it is simultaneous , maybe effects can be mirrored in a linearity.  Maybe the mirrored effect is just a reflection and not really there.

 

Added - The person who came up with the wine scenario tells us what they are ordering, there is nothing spooky about it and nothing entangled, synactic ambiguity is the answer.

 

Who orders first decides the who gets what 

 

 

If I order white first you know to order red

 

if you order first and order white I know to order red, 

 

There is no 50/50 it is designed that way by the creator of the scenario by using syntactic ambiguity manipulation. 

Edited February 4, 2016 by xyz

[Maine farmer]

Here is my wild speculation about quantum entanglement from an imagined perspective of the quantum particles.   No matter the distance we may transport them, be it one kilometer, one light year, or more, from their perspective, they will have not gone anywhere.  To them, all the universe we know and beyond is but one point, and all of time is no time at all.

 

How's that for deductive reasoning in imaginary physics?

[xyz]

Here is my wild speculation about quantum entanglement from an imagined perspective of the quantum particles.   No matter the distance we may transport them, be it one kilometer, one light year, or more, from their perspective, they will have not gone anywhere.  To them, all the universe we know and beyond is but one point, and all of time is no time at all.

 

How's that for deductive reasoning in imaginary physics?

I like your reasoning very much so, very interesting and something very similar to something I have been saying, but you seem to say it so much better than me .   

 

In saying that there is seemingly something amiss with your speculation, a speculation that I do not even deem to be wild, it is good thinking if you can put yourself in the place and replace what you are thinking about with yourself. 

 

 

So we are the particle, relative to us right now, I am, and I presume you will be when reading this, in a relatively stationary inertial reference frame.  So in this situation relative to us we are not moving , our reference frame is not moving, and it is things that move ''around'' us.

 

(When I say our reference frame, I am referring to as far as you can possibly visual observe and not considering any other matter at this point, just the Earth with us standing ''still'' on it in a ''void''.  The ''void'' being relatively stationary .)

 

 

So at this point of enquiry relative to the particle it as not moved , the earth as not moved and space as not moved, and the particle would only experience the now. At this stage relative to the particle, it is in a ''drawing''. 

 

 

 

Will add more later, 

 

added - and in re-reading back my post, it came to me, if we moved the particle 180 degrees to the South of the circle, the particle would be aware of a new reference frame although the reference frame will still be relatively stationary. (the view would change)

 

 

If we was to however move the particle away from the inertial frame the particle would not know if  it was moving or the inertial frame was moving, (relativity - side by side trains)

 

 

Will add more later.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2016 by xyz

[Maine farmer]

Ah, but you have not quite fully committed yourself to the perspective of the particle.  We as observers see the particle as having moved, but the particle would view all positions as being one position, all views as one view.  That is why I imagine there is no need for an aether for light to travel through.  From it's perspective, it is already everywhere it will ever be, and it isn't actually going anywhere.  And with regard to the subatomic particles changing spin, from their perspective, they are simultaneously at all possible states of existence.  We merely witness a fraction of the whole.

[CraigD]

Quantum mechanics reality check time here :)

 

... I was thinking about quantum entanglement, and how when you have two quantum entangled particles and change the spin of one, it instantly effects the other ...

It’s a common misconception that quantum entanglement can be used to communicate - via what Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen famously suggested was “spooky action at a distance”, and space-opera writers conventionally term an ansible. What entanglement really states is that particles with complementary attributes – for instance, photons deflecting in opposite directions from by a BaB₂O₄ crystal, which have 90deg different polarities – retain that complementarity until a measurement of the attribute is made, So if I measure the polarity of one of the photons of such a pair, I know what the other one’s polarity is, even if it’s very far away. This may sound pretty un-amazing – rather like knowing that if I put a penny in one hand and a dime in another, and you check one hand, finding a dime, you know the other has a penny – but complementary particles, are quantum-weird, because until you make the measurement, both particle is in a superposition of possible states. You can’t use it to signal with its partner particle by measuring it, though, because you can’t force the measurement to have a given result. If you knew before the measurement what the result of the measurement would be, you’d have effectively already made it.

[NotBrad]

I have an idea that overlaps the concepts already presented in this thread which agrees with the original statement but not the implied meaning derived from the posts of the OP:

 

We are in an algorithmic world simulated by a supercomputer where all events, past, future and present, are predetermined. Assuming this, the reason we cannot define time as anything other than a relationship between two objects and their states of movement, is because can be manipulated by an external force but is constant for us regardless of any change made due to our inside-the-box view. We cannot tell if our time is changing because it is linear. Also, in addition to this the reason time dilation occurs is actually a resource conservation technique to reduce the calculations necessary to simulate an event by prolonging the period over which the event takes place and thereby reducing the number of reactions that must be simultaneously accounted for!

 

or in other words:

[xyz]

Quantum mechanics reality check time here :)

 

It’s a common misconception that quantum entanglement can be used to communicate - via what Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen famously suggested was “spooky action at a distance”, and space-opera writers conventionally term an ansible. What entanglement really states is that particles with complementary attributes – for instance, photons deflecting in opposite directions from by a BaB₂O₄ crystal, which have 90deg different polarities – retain that complementarity until a measurement of the attribute is made, So if I measure the polarity of one of the photons of such a pair, I know what the other one’s polarity is, even if it’s very far away. This may sound pretty un-amazing – rather like knowing that if I put a penny in one hand and a dime in another, and you check one hand, finding a dime, you know the other has a penny – but complementary particles, are quantum-weird, because until you make the measurement, both particle is in a superposition of possible states. You can’t use it to signal with its partner particle by measuring it, though, because you can’t force the measurement to have a given result. If you knew before the measurement what the result of the measurement would be, you’d have effectively already made it.

It is not difficult to consider why this is, something remains an equilibrium state until there is interaction greater than the equilibrium. If you measure something, you are the interaction, your measuring device affecting that which you measuring, especially when concerning energies and forces. 

 

Observer effect is often a mistake not considered and replaced with an uncertainty value. Take a look at the Cat in the Box, I am certain we would  never put a Cat in a box with poison's , I would be certain that any question related to a Cat in a box is because we put the cat in the box to start off with. 

I have 5 senses, I am certain although I can not see the cat in the box I can certainly hear the cat, I am certain I could use thermal imaging equipment to monitor the cat, uncertainty is just not thinking hard enough. 

 

So when we measure anything, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, don't mess it doesn't react. 

 

For every action not taken, there is no opposite reaction to the none action.

Edited February 6, 2016 by xyz

[xyz]

I have an idea that overlaps the concepts already presented in this thread which agrees with the original statement but not the implied meaning derived from the posts of the OP:

 

We are in an algorithmic world simulated by a supercomputer where all events, past, future and present, are predetermined. Assuming this, the reason we cannot define time as anything other than a relationship between two objects and their states of movement, is because can be manipulated by an external force but is constant for us regardless of any change made due to our inside-the-box view. We cannot tell if our time is changing because it is linear. Also, in addition to this the reason time dilation occurs is actually a resource conservation technique to reduce the calculations necessary to simulate an event by prolonging the period over which the event takes place and thereby reducing the number of reactions that must be simultaneously accounted for!

 

or in other words:

I love the Matrix type ideas, I would put time dilation down to ''ping'' in a complex computer system that used fibre optic technology of space to transfer information from one body to another. Neutral carrier signals sent through space to be received and decoding  by the mass storage devices, and neurological bots an A.I that looks to calculate answers, with an expanding data base that grows, a sort of A.I system that self learns. 

 

 

However I do prefer reality, I would say the Matrix ideas fail for a few reasons of logic, 

 

Why would a complex computer program add inequality and emotion?

 

How would be able to displace coding and move an object, or snap a branch from a tree and take home and turn it into something else, changing the coding, and surely the original tree would just vanish if we broke some data off corrupting the tree, 

[Maine farmer]

Quantum mechanics reality check time here :)

 

It’s a common misconception that quantum entanglement can be used to communicate - via what Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen famously suggested was “spooky action at a distance”, and space-opera writers conventionally term an ansible. What entanglement really states is that particles with complementary attributes – for instance, photons deflecting in opposite directions from by a BaB₂O₄ crystal, which have 90deg different polarities – retain that complementarity until a measurement of the attribute is made, So if I measure the polarity of one of the photons of such a pair, I know what the other one’s polarity is, even if it’s very far away. This may sound pretty un-amazing – rather like knowing that if I put a penny in one hand and a dime in another, and you check one hand, finding a dime, you know the other has a penny – but complementary particles, are quantum-weird, because until you make the measurement, both particle is in a superposition of possible states. You can’t use it to signal with its partner particle by measuring it, though, because you can’t force the measurement to have a given result. If you knew before the measurement what the result of the measurement would be, you’d have effectively already made it.

HA!  You just blew a huge hole in that line of imaginary physics!  So quantum entanglement is more of a Shrodinger's cat sort of thing.  Why hasn't anybody told me that before?  Good example how a little misinformation can snowball with a little wild speculation!

[NotBrad]

I love the Matrix type ideas, I would put time dilation down to ''ping'' in a complex computer system that used fibre optic technology of space to transfer information from one body to another. Neutral carrier signals sent through space to be received and decoding  by the mass storage devices, and neurological bots an A.I that looks to calculate answers, with an expanding data base that grows, a sort of A.I system that self learns. 

 

 

However I do prefer reality, I would say the Matrix ideas fail for a few reasons of logic, 

 

Why would a complex computer program add inequality and emotion?

 

How would be able to displace coding and move an object, or snap a branch from a tree and take home and turn it into something else, changing the coding, and surely the original tree would just vanish if we broke some data off corrupting the tree, 

I think you missed my point there, I was saying that we are part of a self contained system that is incapable of interpreting external factors due to the fact we can only observe the environment that we exist in. I am not saying we are in the Matrix presented in the movies. To refute your points, there is ample evidence to prove that the Matrix as defined in the movies is simply one of several layers of simulated realities.

[xyz]

I think you missed my point there, I was saying that we are part of a self contained system that is incapable of interpreting external factors due to the fact we can only observe the environment that we exist in. I am not saying we are in the Matrix presented in the movies. To refute your points, there is ample evidence to prove that the Matrix as defined in the movies is simply one of several layers of simulated realities.

Yes I did not think you was actually saying we live in a ''matrix'' but I explained a scenario of a Matrix type Universe.  However and a big but , I think logic , the inverse square law and that light diminishes at a distance from the source and technical drawing and vanishing points can prove an infinite universe  to be an axiom.

 

The finite observation of the Universe we observe is a boundary limit, a limit set by light magnitude over distance and perspective view relative to vanishing points of objects.  For example if I held a 2 pence coin in my fingers and asked you what I had in my fingers from 2ft away, you would clearly tell me a 2 pence piece, however if I was 100 yards away it would be questionable if you could see anything in my hand, relatively the 2 pence piece as past its vanishing point of the observers range limit. The same applies to the universe, just because you can not see the 2 pence coin beyond your limit, there is no reason to presume the 2 pence is not there , there is every reason to believe the 2 pence coin is still there beyond your range.

Also there is a logical question, if space was not infinite, that would mean space was within a solid, so is the solid infinite or beyond the solid more space, it is logically impossible for space to just end. Even after an end there is always a beginning of something. 

[Maine farmer]

To have the perspective of there being no time, then all of the universe would seem as but one point.  All of human existence would be a fraction of a cross section of a part of that single point. It could be that point exists within a sort of infinite froth of points, and if it is infinite, than everything that is possible must happen somewhere within the froth.  

 

Of course, "bubble universes" would make the froth a better analogy.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Farming guy

[xyz]

To have the perspective of there being no time, then all of the universe would seem as but one point.  All of human existence would be a fraction of a cross section of a part of that single point. It could be that point exists within a sort of infinite froth of points, and if it is infinite, than everything that is possible must happen somewhere within the froth.  

 

Of course, "bubble universes" would make the froth a better analogy.

Consider the perspective that the Universe is observed has an whole, we observe the Universe from a locality perspective and the observer is the centre perspective of the Universe.  Every observer has a spherical radius limit boundary by light.  Imagine an infinite void, we will call this infinite 0. 

 

 

Imagine in this void ''floating'' around is spheres of light with a central light source. 

 

 

It is not a multi-verse, it is one infinite Universe, Galaxies are the ''visual universes''

 

 

What we class now as a Universe is not the Universe and not a true reflection, the milky way is a reflection  of minimal Universe, Other galaxies are reflections of just a part of the infinite Universe.

 

 

I know that sounds confusing after trying to explain it, 

 

so scenario, 

 

Take away all the other matter in the visual universe leaving just the milky way, then we are born only to observe the milky way, how old is the universe then because the radius only extends to about pluto, ?

 

 

Any external observers , in another words if you was at alpha and I was at Beta, two ''individual'' visual universes, observe the others universe as a black hole , it is not that the black hole does not emit light, it is the black holes light is to weak to see anything but black. 

 

4/3 pi r_c³=visual universe

 

where c is light 

 

added

 

Edited February 8, 2016 by xyz

[OldBill]

Getting back to XYZ's formula:  0+1=0, I think I can help lend some proof to that:  I once owned an '86 Oldsmobile that was so poorly designed & manufactured that virtually everything that could go wrong... actually did.  So, I finally reached the point where I was going to "86" that stupid car if even one more thing went awry. Anyway, I climbed into it one Winter morning, almost late for work, and of course the damn thing wouldn't start.  So that was 'iT' as far as I was concerned..  I called the Junker and had it hauled away.  It was just that ONE more thing  that that broke the camels back, and led me to '86' my stupid '86 Olds...ending up, of course with zero cars to get me to work.

 

So anyway ...what it boiled down to was this simple expression: '86' + 1 - '86 =0.....               Ergo 1 screw-up = 0 cars.

And I'm now certain that XYZ will be ever so grateful for not having to resort to Hamiltonian Hieroglyphics to further befuddle us with his interesting postulate.

 

..............................................

 

Time, by the way, does exist.  If anyone's interested: it's a perception of ours, supported most likely by a very real form of significantly repressed dynamic flux, configured to keep Ol' Sol performing as a reactor, rather than going all Nova on us.  I see it as an important part of a Star-keeping Utility' that nearly fills our star's entire heliosphere, and which provides for that reactor's 'containment vessel' (Gravity) as well.....  I imagine Time as continuously interacting with Gravity, likely varying over a narrow control range so as to 'optimize' Sol's output.  (It would still appear to be a 'constant', noting that all of our clocking mechanisms would track it very nicely.)

 

Further, Time's quantized range of values must certainly be uniquely specific to each star, thus rendering that universal constant 'C' as being neither universal nor a constant.  (The value of 'C' is more likely just a 'locked-in average' over a short range of greatly attenuated solar dynamics). 

 

And further worth noting: all forms of energy entering any star's heliosphere will quickly align itself to that star's unique 'local C'. thus giving the inhabitants of that particular solar system the appearance of all energy being 'universal' in its velocity.

 

OK , that's enough...... Just thought I'd throw all that in, to provoke any number of people on this planet who may be less engaged than our esteemed colleague "XYZ"..

 

"Yes Virginia, there really is Time"  (or so goes this particular entry in the "Strange Claims" Forum.)