Back to the "does time exist?"

[psicicle]

I remember that there was a thread here a while ago, asking if time existed which got replies saying that yes, it definitely exists. I want to point out the book "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour. To verify its credibility, Lee Smolin, the author of "The Trouble with Physics" praises it highly.

I haven't read much of it yet, but it might be an interesting counterargument, though he of course does not say that the nonexistence of time is a fact yet.

 

[Crimson King]

Why didn't you post in that topic?

 

[Kitten]

EDIT: Ignore this.

 

[TheDuplexDuo]

Time eh? Time is subject to the obsever. Also in which context are we going to apply this to? Just space and time or is spacetime included?​

 

[Fawriel]

As a hobby philosopher, I'll have to say that this is one of those subjects where one should apply the MST3K Mantra to real life:
"It's just a show, I should really just relax."

Deconstructing the very boundaries of reality that define us is a nice exercise in the principle of philosophy that we can never trust our perception too much, but it's also impractical when it comes to more pressing subjects and a good way of driving oneself insane.

 

[Kix]

It exists regardless if humans are there to recognize it. Things still would age and time progresses.

 

[antimatter]

people age because of oxygen poisoning. the very thing that gives us life kills us. national geographic, i thank thee. it was the poison issue with the tarantula leaning into a beaker to have its venom drained, if you were interested. just throwing that out there, i do believe in time in all reality.

 

[OffTheChain]

It exists regardless if humans are there to recognize it. Things still would age and time progresses.

co-signed

I'd also like to point out that time is just the general description given to the bold'd part above as it occurs regardless.

 

[AltF4]

This isn't a matter of debate. Time exists in a very real way, not in a metaphorical or philosophical way.

You can bend time, stretch it, compress it, and tear it. Take an upper division physics class.

 

[psicicle]

Have you heard the argument against it? I'll appeal to the authority of Lee Smolin, who has called the exclusion of time very promising. It's not really as much a debate as an unexplored avenue of research.

It exists regardless if humans are there to recognize it. Things still would age and time progresses.

This is untestable though

 

[AltF4]

I did a quick google of Lee Smolin and didn't find anything regarding him saying that time doesn't exist. In fact, it looks like he's involved in String Theory which includes time as the 11th dimension.

Do you have an easy link perhaps?

 

[Jam Stunna]

At the very least, entropy increases in the universe. The difference between entropy from one given point in the universe to another can be defined as time.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Time is a dimension, similar to depth.

As was pointed out before, it can be bent, stretched, compressed, or torn. Think about it, when traveling at certain portions of light speed, you age at different rates, how could this happen if time wasn't real?

It couldn't it would be impossible for such a thing to occur if time did not "exist", because it would merely be a perceptive thing, as opposed to an actual phenominion.

Unless you argue that nothing exists, whole nother kettle of fish there.


Really, if it hasn't occurred already, physics will take into account "temporal existence" in such form, basically the volume multiplied by the time of existence, but of course they'll need to figure out a unit that actually works for time, which requires it to be useful in something, at least for it to be codified. Maybe after advances in String theory and Quantum mechanics.

 

[Ekul]

Time is completely subject to definition that nobody shares. For example, if your definition of time is incorrect according to the laws of physics, then no, time does not exist.

Assuming everyone shares the definition that time is change of state of matter (Which exists since how else can I hit the keyboard), the real question is "Is the past a tangible thing or just a collection of evidence and memory?"

 

[GoldShadow]

This isn't a matter of debate. Time exists in a very real way, not in a metaphorical or philosophical way.

You can bend time, stretch it, compress it, and tear it. Take an upper division physics class.

Time is a dimension, similar to depth.

As was pointed out before, it can be bent, stretched, compressed, or torn. Think about it, when traveling at certain portions of light speed, you age at different rates, how could this happen if time wasn't real?

It couldn't it would be impossible for such a thing to occur if time did not "exist", because it would merely be a perceptive thing, as opposed to an actual phenominion.

Unless you argue that nothing exists, whole nother kettle of fish there.


Really, if it hasn't occurred already, physics will take into account "temporal existence" in such form, basically the volume multiplied by the time of existence, but of course they'll need to figure out a unit that actually works for time, which requires it to be useful in something, at least for it to be codified. Maybe after advances in String theory and Quantum mechanics.

Quoted to reiterate this again for everyone who thinks time is wholly subjective or a philosophical question.

 

[antimatter]

GoldShadow, just to clarify, was my information correct? I know you are one of the smartest members, and as long as you are here I wish to make sure my knowledge is not lacking in that department.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Time is completely subject to definition that nobody shares. For example, if your definition of time is incorrect according to the laws of physics, then no, time does not exist.

Which is true, but also meaningless, it stands to reason that if you misdefine something, then what you think it is doesn't exist, unless it actually the definition of something else.

However, the fact is that "time", whatever it really is, does exist, you just need to recognize that people may or may not have the proper terminology.

Assuming everyone shares the definition that time is change of state of matter (Which exists since how else can I hit the keyboard), the real question is "Is the past a tangible thing or just a collection of evidence and memory?"

Time, as far as the latest scientific literature I have seen, isn't really defined by what it IS but instead, by it's effects, it causes an increase in entropy, it causes a change in the state of matter, but what exactly time itself is, well that's not known, yet. Similar to gravity, we know what it causes, attraction between bodies (or more precisely, curves in space that mimics attraction for many practical purposes), but we don't know exactly what it is.

So, that's really just another meaningless definition that cannot be proven to reflect the true nature of "time".

However, since time is a dimension, then the past is undoubtedly "real", since it is a dimension, a height of 6 yards still includes a height of 4, a dimension includes all previous points. In this case however, that doesn't mean we can observe the points.

 

[AltF4]

adumbrodeus:

Careful about gravity. Gravity is one of the most fundamentally not understood concepts in the universe. Relativity and Quantum mechanics both give an explanation as to what it is... but they disagree completely.

You are correct in what you said for relativity, but according to quantum mechanics, gravity is caused by a particle called a graviton moving between the two objects in question.

One of the biggest searches in physics today is for a consistent theory of gravity.



All:
It really does make sense that time is a dimension though right? A dimension is something that you use to specify the location of an object. For example, if you wanted to know where Paris is, I could tell you using Latitude and Longitude. It only takes 2 values (dimensions) to say where an object is on the surface of earth. Thus we can say that the Earth's surface is 2D.

But in general, we can't do this using just 2 dimensions. If you wanted to say where you were while flying a plane, you'd need to say: Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude.

But that's not all! If I said "meet me at X long, Y lat, and Z alt" you still would have trouble finding me. Why? Because you don't know when I will be there.

In space, in order to describe the location of an object you need to specify the X position, Y position, Z position, and the time T at which it is there.

It takes 4 dimensions to describe an object in space, thus space is 4 dimensional!

 

[Fawriel]

Out of curiousity, just how did they research things like "you age slower while traveling at light speed", and entropy, and... really, all that. I'm starting to think I'm really missing out on something not knowing that.

 

[TheFifthMan]

Fawriel: "You age slower while traveling at light speed" is a consequence of Special Relativity, introduced by Einstein through some calculations foreign to me. The concept of entropy was developed by German physicist Rudolf Clausius, who analyzed work by French military engineer Sadi Carnot. If you want to learn more, go look up "special relativity" and "thermodynamics" on Wikipedia.

Just something that's on my mind...

Okay, so we can describe the average position of everything in the universe as a function of x, y, z, and t, right? So we have

position of everything = s(x,y,z,t)

But x, y, and z are functions of time, so we have

location along x=x(t)
location along y=y(t)
location along z=z(t)

giving us s(x(t),y(t),z(t),t)) which is the average position of everything in the universe with respect to time, and this is generally how we view things.

Now... what if we were to observe the universe with respect to something that isn't time, say x or y? What would that look like?

If my math is wrong, please slap me.

 

[AltF4]

You can test it directly, and we have.

Time also slows down the closer you get to a group of large mass (like the Earth). Not just by moving very quickly. We have actually placed very accurate atomics clocks at different heights for a length of time. And wouldn't you know it? The clocks disagree on the time by exactly the amount that Einstein says it would!

 

[adumbrodeus]

adumbrodeus:

Careful about gravity. Gravity is one of the most fundamentally not understood concepts in the universe. Relativity and Quantum mechanics both give an explanation as to what it is... but they disagree completely.

You are correct in what you said for relativity, but according to quantum mechanics, gravity is caused by a particle called a graviton moving between the two objects in question.

One of the biggest searches in physics today is for a consistent theory of gravity.

All of which was my point, we know what gravity DOES, but how it works is a bit of a mystery. Did I say, "a bit"? I mean one of the biggest physics mysteries to date.

Oh, by the way, I thought gravitons were still theoretical, did they actually manage to prove their existence? Either way though, I was under the impression that the space-warping effect was present on the quantum scale as well, and it wasn't just an "attraction".




But I very much doubt that any person will deny it's existence based on the fact that we don't know what it actually is, the existence of the concept in which the effects of gravity (or time) are compiled under is not dependent upon us properly defining the cause of the effects, they just are, and "why?", well, that's our job to figure out.

 

[Sun-Wukong]

Time don exist![/sarcasm] In all seriousness though, I believe it does.

 

[SSBMasterFox]

Does time exist? I'm not sure, give me some time to think about it.
There ya go. [/arrogance]

jk, but I do believe time exists.