Does Time actually exist?

[Deleted member]

Yeah, so I discussed this topic a fair bit while I was away...anyway

Is time simply a way of measuring durations? Is it just numbers sequentially rising? Is it simply to help society function? Did people think, "Instead of saying that we'll meet when the sun is in that position, let's label that position for future reference."?

Spoiler

this is what I basically believe

Or

Is time a necessary element to our existence? Would we exist without time? Is time a fourth dimension? Does time really exist as part of the so-called "time-space continuum"?


I hope this is fresh

So I guess the thesis question is thus..

Is time man-made?

 

[Mediocre]

The various measurements of time are man made.

Time itself is not man made. It's an entirely natural phenomenon. Time is change, and measurement of time is a measurement of change.

If you say that time is not real, you are denying that any kind of change happens. It's an absolutely ridiculous notion, really.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Of course time is man made. Its simply another form of measurement.

However it does exist, it is a definite. People could of called it whatever they wanted but all-in-all we can physically see the effects of time. A person aging shows time. Fruit decaying shows time. I think if you could ask someone/something from a different galaxy they would have a similar way of measuring of time.

 

[blazedaces]

Time is a dimension, one we travel through. I should be more specific, we all travel through space-time in the exact same speed, the speed of light. That is why clocks measuring time on planes versus clocks measuring time on a relatively stationary earth measure different times. If it were just a man-made means of measurement then it would have nothing to do with how fast we travel through space or the bending of space (gravity/mass).

-blazed

 

[Kalypso]

If it's not a dimension Einstein wasted a lot of time.

Reading up on Relativity you come to understand, according to theory that time is a dimension and can be slowed down and sped up, and that theoretically some methods of 'time travel' are possible, although rather improbable. There are equations regarding time, especially as it relates to the speed of light.

 

[Blackadder]

The basis of how we "tell" time is man made, but time itself is real.
I don't believe time is "bendable" however. I think of it as one point in the universe always. there is no past, and no future.
So, if that was right, and there was only one "Point in time" always, then I'm not sure what that means for "Time" itself.
My two cents.

 

[blazedaces]

The basis of how we "tell" time is man made, but time itself is real.
I don't believe time is "bendable" however. I think of it as one point in the universe always. there is no past, and no future.
So, if that was right, and there was only one "Point in time" always, then I'm not sure what that means for "Time" itself.
My two cents.

Einstein proved this wrong, he proved time was not independent. Another words, it's possible for two different clocks to measure two different amounts of time passing.

Time is not a fabric though, it is not multidimensional (at least we don't know yet that we live in more then one) so the "bendable" concept isn't very accurate either. We can speed up or slow down its passing though...

-blazed

 

[Blackadder]

Einstein proved this wrong, he proved time was not independent. Another words, it's possible for two different clocks to measure two different amounts of time passing.

Time is not a fabric though, it is not multidimensional (at least we don't know yet that we live in more then one) so the "bendable" concept isn't very accurate either. We can speed up or slow down its passing though...

-blazed

****, did he? I knew I should have paid more attention to that guy.
Well, if it is does this make time travel possible at all?
The mind boogles.
I myself have always hoped it was possible, and I guess this gives way to it may well being so. But would that change history, or become history?
if you follow blazed?
I find this all rather interesting!

(Sorry, I must sound like a complete jerk, this isn't my area of know-how)

 

[Deleted member]

Can you please show me how the flow of time can be changed?

Blackadder, if you do not believe in past or future, then you must not believe in time as most see it.

As for the rest of you, can you perceive time? If time is truly a dimension, then why can I not perceive it? You might say that kicking a table, watching the cause and effect, is perceiving time. I don't buy that. Time is not visible in the way gravity is visible. Gravity is a force.. is time?

I can perceive the other three dimensions. That works in my mind.

What I don't understand is this:

It is foolish to believe in something you do not understand. Are you plebians actually prepared to tell me that you fully understand the arcane inner workings and sanctum of the universe? If you fully understood time, you'd be able to explain black holes and things like that. Blazed seems to think he can travel through time, maybe you could shed some light on this subject?

Am I getting the ball rolling?

Might I mention that Einstein probably barely scratched the surface of infinity

 

[Blackadder]

Yes, I mentioned this isn't my area of expertise.
I also should mention I don't know much on Einstein.

I would however agree, that Einstein probably did only scratch the surface.
Very likely indeed. I have no idea what else could be uncovered from it all, but I would assume the origins of many a thing would be unearthed if we could understand time better.

Sorry with how ignorant I sound everyone.

 

[blazedaces]

Can you please show me how the flow of time can be changed?

Here's some information about the special theory of relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_theory_of_relativity

The flow of time can be changed by manipulating one's velocity/mass or by affecting the surrounding gravity, at least as far as we know right now.

Blackadder, if you do not believe in past or future, then you must not believe in time as most see it.

As for the rest of you, can you perceive time? If time is truly a dimension, then why can I not perceive it? You might say that kicking a table, watching the cause and effect, is perceiving time. I don't buy that. Time is not visible in the way gravity is visible. Gravity is a force.. is time?

"I don't buy that" is not a very powerful argument dude. We can't see molecules, electrons, neutrons, protons, quarks. Hell, we can't even see wind. But we can see their effects and run experiments with results that would only be explained by their existence.

For time an example of this would be what I mentioned above, when accurate watches were left on the ground and put on airplanes that were moving at high speeds. A difference in the measured time was seen between these watches, which would be extremely hard to explain if time did not exist as its own dimension and with the laws that we argue govern it.

What I don't understand is this:

It is foolish to believe in something you do not understand. Are you plebians actually prepared to tell me that you fully understand the arcane inner workings and sanctum of the universe?

Plebeians? Romans? What?

We need to understand everything about the universe to know something about time? What kind of logic is this?

If you fully understood time, you'd be able to explain black holes and things like that.

First of all, we can explain a good bit about black holes. Be more specific, what do you think we can't explain and what does it have to do with knowing about time?

Blazed seems to think he can travel through time, maybe you could shed some light on this subject?

We are traveling through time right now... just at a constant speed. We can manipulate how fast we pass through time (as of what we know right now) but we can't change the past (yet).

Am I getting the ball rolling?

Might I mention that Einstein probably barely scratched the surface of infinity

I think what you're saying is the simple truth: the more we know/learn the more we realize we don't know. Still, we should never stop to try and understand/explain the world around us. Only through doing so can we come closer to the truth.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Here's some information about the special theory of relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_theory_of_relativity

The flow of time can be changed by manipulating one's velocity/mass or by affecting the surrounding gravity, at least as far as we know right now.

Well, I looked at it, I don't understand any of it. Maybe you could translate. Or link me to a website that shows it's been demonstrated to be fact.

"I don't buy that" is not a very powerful argument dude. We can't see molecules, electrons, neutrons, protons, quarks. Hell, we can't even see wind. But we can see their effects and run experiments with results that would only be explained by their existence.

Sigh. I don't buy that cause and effect is the same as time. That's what I meant.
When did I talk about seeing? I'm talking about perceiving.

Try perceiving another colour that hasn't been discovered yet. That's what it's like for me to perceive time. I simply cannot.

For time an example of this would be what I mentioned above, when accurate watches were left on the ground and put on airplanes that were moving at high speeds. A difference in the measured time was seen between these watches, which would be extremely hard to explain if time did not exist as its own dimension and with the laws that we argue govern it.

I'm not sure how this proves time's existence

Plebeians? Romans? What?

Plebs are simple people.. I think that about covers it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebian

We need to understand everything about the universe to know something about time? What kind of logic is this?

Hm. You propose time is a dimension. Meaning it's prevalent throughout the universe. Such as your three dimensions are all around you.


I'm asking you - if you cannot fully grasp and understand the concept of time, why would you believe in it?

First of all, we can explain a good bit about black holes. Be more specific, what do you think we can't explain and what does it have to do with knowing about time?

You call it a fourth dimension! There are theories that say black holes are rifts in time. Meaning black holes are another facet of time which you need to understand before you can accept it to be truth.

We are traveling through time right now... just at a constant speed. We can manipulate how fast we pass through time (as of what we know right now) but we can't change the past (yet).

Nitpick all you want. The only place I can manipulate time is my stopwatch.

I think what you're saying is the simple truth: the more we know/learn the more we realize we don't know. Still, we should never stop to try and understand/explain the world around us. Only through doing so can we come closer to the truth.

The truth is unknown. I am a time agnostic!

 

[Mediocre]

Sigh. I don't buy that cause and effect is the same as time. That's what I meant.
When did I talk about seeing? I'm talking about perceiving.

Try perceiving another colour that hasn't been discovered yet. That's what it's like for me to perceive time. I simply cannot.

You mentioned gravity as an example of something that is "visible."

Blackadder, if you do not believe in past or future, then you must not believe in time as most see it.

As for the rest of you, can you perceive time? If time is truly a dimension, then why can I not perceive it? You might say that kicking a table, watching the cause and effect, is perceiving time. I don't buy that. Time is not visible in the way gravity is visible. Gravity is a force.. is time?

How, exactly, is gravity visible? You cannot actually see gravity itself. All you can see is the effect it has on everything around you. The same is true for time. You cannot actually see time, but you can see how it influences everything you've ever come into contact with.

I'm asking you - if you cannot fully grasp and understand the concept of time, why would you believe in it?

You're religious, right? Do you "fully grasp and understand" God? Are all His various decisions clear to you?

If not, why would you believe in Him?

Even if you make religion exempt from these strange standards of yours, there's so many more things that you'd have to stop believing in by your logic.

Do you really understand gravity? Do you understand how black holes work, how they suck in everything that passes their event horizon and crush it into one single point? If not, then you ought to stop believing in gravity.

Do you understand light? Do you understand why predominantly green light is reflected off the leaves of a plant, while the other types are absorbed?

Never mind that both those examples have been explained by scientists. I don't think you understand them, so you better stop believing in light and gravity.

You call it a fourth dimension! There are theories that say black holes are rifts in time. Meaning black holes are another facet of time which you need to understand before you can accept it to be truth.

Black holes warp time, much like they warp space.

Nitpick all you want. The only place I can manipulate time is my stopwatch.

Here's that example of time manipulation you asked for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

 

[blazedaces]

Well, I looked at it, I don't understand any of it. Maybe you could translate. Or link me to a website that shows it's been demonstrated to be fact.

I'm sorry, but that website has a whole lot of content and concepts discussed. The truth is, they are all related, so to fully understand any of them one would have to study all of them. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to act arrogant, I would love to educate, but I need to know what you don't understand so we can get into this one step at a time.

These are concepts taught in advanced physics (special and general theory of relativity). I'll refer you quickly to this site though which more specifically only talks about time dilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

But here's where the proof lies: these are ACTUAL equations which we used to predict to an extreme accuracy the time dilation (or difference between two clocks). Think about it this way, let's say that we used the equations to calculate the time difference would be 2,376.4925472901 milliseconds, well then that was the EXACT difference we discovered when we put two different clocks (one left on the earth, one put on a vehicle with known constant velocity v).

Not only that, but we did this experiment a vast number of times. Not only that but others conducted the experiment to prove to themselves this was in fact true. And, to this day all experiments involving objects undergoing these conditions where time dilation is predictably undergone are calculated to involve time dilation. If this effect were not observed it would have been mentioned. Another words, it's certainly not a coincidence by now, it's rather been thoroughly proved.

Sigh. I don't buy that cause and effect is the same as time. That's what I meant.
When did I talk about seeing? I'm talking about perceiving.

Try perceiving another colour that hasn't been discovered yet. That's what it's like for me to perceive time. I simply cannot.

You ignored my point though, which was that all these things at one point were thought of as "not perceivable", but we can see the repercussions/effects of their existence. I gave you those for time dilation above.

I'm not sure how this proves time's existence

If time did not exist, how could one explain this observed phenomenon? We know gravity exists right? How else would we explain why objects orbit around other large masses like the sun and the earth?

Plebs are simple people.. I think that about covers it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebian

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but not even that wikipedia source says that's the definition. In wikipedia "The term is used more commonly today to refer to one who is in the middle or lower class, or who appears to be, but in Rome, plebeians could become quite wealthy and influential."

I'm just explaining my confusion, I'm not doubting that the definition you claim is probably correct.

Hm. You propose time is a dimension. Meaning it's prevalent throughout the universe. Such as your three dimensions are all around you.


I'm asking you - if you cannot fully grasp and understand the concept of time, why would you believe in it?

We don't completely comprehend quantum mechanics, so should we argue that to believe in the existence of molecules is not quite substantiated?

I'm saying that you can always argue that one doesn't completely comprehend a concept and therefore to follow this line of thought would be to not believe in anything and I find that concept fruitless...

You call it a fourth dimension! There are theories that say black holes are rifts in time. Meaning black holes are another facet of time which you need to understand before you can accept it to be truth.

I have read quite a bit about black holes. I would say I understand them fairly well. I asked you before and I'll ask you again, what about black holes do you want to know, specifically? What are you saying that I don't know?

You say "there are theories", well point them out. Show me an actual theory and show me EXACTLY what I don't understand and why it has anything to do with evidence for a dimension of time.

Nitpick all you want. The only place I can manipulate time is my stopwatch.

??? No, I'm telling you that you can manipulate your passage through time to a greater extent. Unless you conducted the same experiments and found contradictory evidence to show that you indeed can not manipulate time as I have pointed out by simply increasing your velocity then you can't make this claim.

The truth is unknown. I am a time agnostic!

Well, I'm trying to educate you, but in all honesty, it doesn't matter what you believe if evidence shows otherwise. You can choose not to believe in dinosaurs, that is after all your choice, but it doesn't change the truth.

You may choose not to believe in the truth, but it is already known. Note that when I say truth I'm talking specifically about the issue of time, not the truth about all things.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

I'm sorry, but that website has a whole lot of content and concepts discussed. The truth is, they are all related, so to fully understand any of them one would have to study all of them. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to act arrogant, I would love to educate, but I need to know what you don't understand so we can get into this one step at a time.

I was never one for Physics. I'll get back to you on the translation.

These are concepts taught in advanced physics (special and general theory of relativity). I'll refer you quickly to this site though which more specifically only talks about time dilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

But here's where the proof lies: these are ACTUAL equations which we used to predict to an extreme accuracy the time dilation (or difference between two clocks). Think about it this way, let's say that we used the equations to calculate the time difference would be 2,376.4925472901 milliseconds, well then that was the EXACT difference we discovered when we put two different clocks (one left on the earth, one put on a vehicle with known constant velocity v).

Forgive me if I'm being extremely ignorant, and I'm in no way questioning your logic. But I'm curious now - how would we create a time dilation equation? And is this supposed to mean that the clock in the air was ... ahead in time? What I'm trying to grasp is, if the clock in the air is that many milliseconds ahead in time, does it ever increase? Could you go faster and go further ahead in time? What if you landed and saw people who were "behind in time"?

You'd go down there and say "Hey, I'm ahead in time." Which seems ridiculous to me. This is why I have a hard time believing in it. For me to believe in time travel other than a constant speed, (which I was calling the nitpicking on) it would mean I'd have to believe in some kind of a teleportation, to name just one term I can think of off the top of my head. If I went on that plane that went further into the future, could I land and see myself getting into the plane a couple hours earlier?

Can you answer those questions in bold? I'm guessing you can't. Which isn't because you're stupid or anything. So for you to say that you understood time, is again, preposterous. And I mean, truly. Fully. Completely understand time.

Not only that, but we did this experiment a vast number of times. Not only that but others conducted the experiment to prove to themselves this was in fact true. And, to this day all experiments involving objects undergoing these conditions where time dilation is predictably undergone are calculated to involve time dilation. If this effect were not observed it would have been mentioned. Another words, it's certainly not a coincidence by now, it's rather been thoroughly proved.

Well, I'm intrigued to say the least.

If time did not exist, how could one explain this observed phenomenon? We know gravity exists right? How else would we explain why objects orbit around other large masses like the sun and the earth?

I have no explanation as to how I could explain the phenomenon, because I don't really fully understand it just yet. And even when I did, my explanation is worth nothing. For all I know, your phenomenon is caused by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. -_-'' Sorry

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but not even that wikipedia source says that's the definition. In wikipedia "The term is used more commonly today to refer to one who is in the middle or lower class, or who appears to be, but in Rome, plebeians could become quite wealthy and influential."

I'm just explaining my confusion, I'm not doubting that the definition you claim is probably correct.

Your confusion is well-founded I suppose. Nowadays, the term plebian is used to signify unimportance or, low-brow-ity, etc. As intellectuals, the plebians of our society are lesser than us in intelligence. I would call someone watching the most moronic of reality TV shows a plebian, or that the TV appeals to plebs, if I were to say such a phrase. The way I meant it in my post earlier was that we are not important on the grand scheme of infinity.

We don't completely comprehend quantum mechanics, so should we argue that to believe in the existence of molecules is not quite substantiated?

I'm saying that you can always argue that one doesn't completely comprehend a concept and therefore to follow this line of thought would be to not believe in anything and I find that concept fruitless...

But you need to remember, that even if you don't believe in something fully, you can still recognize the possibility that it exists. Which is why I'm agnostic on most supernatural things. I question gravity all the time.

This line of thinking is not fruitless at all. Might I remind you that it was Socrates, as recorded in the Apology, who said:

The smartest person is the one who knows he does not know.

Here's the excerpt from the Apology

"...but the fact is, gentlemen, it it likely that the god [at Delphi, i.e. Apollo] is really wise and by his oracle means this: "Human wisdom is of little or no value." And it appears that he does not really say this of Socrates, but merely uses my name, and makes me an example, as if he were to say: "This one of you, O human beings, is wisest, who, like Socrates, recognizes that he is in truth of no account in respect to wisdom."

So, Mediocre, as you so inevitably pointed out, I am religious to the extent that my father has made me attend church until I was 16. I'm 17 now, meaning I can stop going. That was the full extent of my religiousness. I am mainly agnostic. Because I do not know. I tend to lean on the side of faith, due to sheer mind-bogglery when I stare into space, when sometimes I just don't think science or math, for once, have the explanations.

I have read quite a bit about black holes. I would say I understand them fairly well. I asked you before and I'll ask you again, what about black holes do you want to know, specifically? What are you saying that I don't know?



You say "there are theories", well point them out. Show me an actual theory and show me EXACTLY what I don't understand and why it has anything to do with evidence for a dimension of time.

From the Wikipedia article on black holes:

While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics is taken into account. Research on this subject indicates that, rather than holding captured matter forever, black holes slowly leak a form of thermal energy called Hawking radiation.[5][6][7] However, the final, correct description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown.

I went to the quantum gravity page as well:

Unsolved problems in physics: How can the theory of quantum mechanics be merged with the theory of general relativity/gravitational force and remain correct at microscopic length scales? What verifiable predictions does any theory of quantum gravity make?

So let me get this straight: To fully describe black holes, we need a theory of quantum gravity, which in itself is a paradox it seems.

Well, I'm trying to educate you, but in all honesty, it doesn't matter what you believe if evidence shows otherwise. You can choose not to believe in dinosaurs, that is after all your choice, but it doesn't change the truth.

You may choose not to believe in the truth, but it is already known. Note that when I say truth I'm talking specifically about the issue of time, not the truth about all things.

>_<

I find it peculiar then, that my physics teacher, who is an extremely qualified individual, questions time's existence - we even had a debate about it in class.

 

[Mediocre]

Forgive me if I'm being extremely ignorant, and I'm in no way questioning your logic. But I'm curious now - how would we create a time dilation equation? And is this supposed to mean that the clock in the air was ... ahead in time? What I'm trying to grasp is, if the clock in the air is that many milliseconds ahead in time, does it ever increase? Could you go faster and go further ahead in time? What if you landed and saw people who were "behind in time"?

You'd go down there and say "Hey, I'm ahead in time." Which seems ridiculous to me. This is why I have a hard time believing in it. For me to believe in time travel other than a constant speed, (which I was calling the nitpicking on) it would mean I'd have to believe in some kind of a teleportation, to name just one term I can think of off the top of my head. If I went on that plane that went further into the future, could I land and see myself getting into the plane a couple hours earlier?

No. The kind of time travel we're talking about does not allow anyone to go backwards in time.

What it does allow is for a person to slow down their passage in time relative to other people. The faster you move, the slower time progresses. I know this isn't exactly intuitive, and runs contrary to common sense, but there is both experimental and mathematical proof to support it.

Visit the link in my previous post for the actual experiment.

Can you answer those questions in bold? I'm guessing you can't. Which isn't because you're stupid or anything. So for you to say that you understood time, is again, preposterous. And I mean, truly. Fully. Completely understand time.

Never mind that I did answer you questions. Even if I hadn't, what the hell does that have to do with anything? I'll admit that I don't "completely understand time." You seem to think that I, therefore, should not believe in its existence.

That level of doubt is simply pointless.

But you need to remember, that even if you don't believe in something fully, you can still recognize the possibility that it exists. Which is why I'm agnostic on most supernatural things. I question gravity all the time.

See, I believe in things that have evidence for them, and question my belief when I discover evidence that goes against it.

Maintaining a state of permanent agnosticism on all subjects is nonsensical.

So, Mediocre, as you so inevitably pointed out, I am religious to the extent that my father has made me attend church until I was 16. I'm 17 now, meaning I can stop going. That was the full extent of my religiousness. I am mainly agnostic. Because I do not know. I tend to lean on the side of faith, due to sheer mind-bogglery when I stare into space, when sometimes I just don't think science or math, for once, have the explanations.

Fair enough.

>_<

I find it peculiar then, that my physics teacher, who is an extremely qualified individual, questions time's existence - we even had a debate about it in class.

Is it possible that the teacher was simply seeking to incite debate, rather than seriously questioning the existence of time?



Delorted, let me ask you this: If time doesn't exist, how do you explain change? I doubt you deny that change occurs. Time and the various units we use to represent it are simply ways of measuring the rate of change.

 

[Delphiki]

Has it been proven that those experiments didn't simply place a physical change on the clock which caused them to be wrong? Originally I assume the experiment was done with analog clocks - those could easily be inaccurate if they were affected by G forces.

Just throwing that out there, it's not the point I'm here to make.



This is the basic premise, of Immanuel Kant, of time -

Time is neither a dimension nor a thing in itself. It is instead a process of the understanding which creates the possibility of the mind to know cause and effect. Therefore without time (as part of the understanding) we would not be able to know of change or of any state of affairs besides the one we are in now, and no physical or mental changes would be possible, because the mind could not comprehend a 'before' and 'after' status.

Therefore time does not exist anymore than logic - things are only logical because we apply supposed logical systems to them. Logic and time are both dogmatic.

Also, some of you seem to be confusing cause and effect. Cause and effect does not necessitate time, except as a faculty of the understanding.



Discuss. If anyone has more interest in this, read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Of course time is real, it is the fourth dimension of existence. Speed, direction, movement, and any form of change is time.

Measuring time occurs through time, but is man-made. Gravity is proof of time however.

 

[AltF4]

Hi everyone! This is my first post here as an official debater. Good to see you all. Now on with business, I do love these sciencey topics!

Much has already been said that I don't think I could add on to without much repetition, so I will say what I can that is new. Yes, time is real. Very real. It is not just an abstract notion that is man made, time is a dimension that can be directly manipulated by us. I read the wikipedia articles that were posted as references here, and they are very complete, but rather confusing if you don't already know much on the subject.

So instead, I will describe to you exactly how you can manipulate time to travel into the future. This is what is called the famous "Light Box" thought experiment. If you would like to do more research on it, just google that term. Here we go:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One bit of important information first: The speed of light is constant no matter who the observer is. You'll just have to take my word for this unfortunately because I couldn't possibly prove this to you in a reasonable amount of time. All you need to know is that at all times during this experiment if the question raised "how fast is this light going with respect to me?" the answer is always: The speed of light. Good.

Imagine a spaceship traveling directly away from the earth at a very fast speed. Inside the spaceship there is man with a flashlight, a mirror, and a stopwatch that keeps perfect time. What the man is going to do is turn on the flashlight and measure the time it takes for the light to bounce off the mirror and back to himself. Meanwhile back on Earth, there will likewise be another man who will be also measuring the time it takes for the light to bounce back, also with a perfect stopwatch. (Don't concern yourself with unimportant matters such as "How could the dude on earth see the light in the spaceship" or "How do you build a perfect stopwatch" This is a thought experiment.)

The man in the spaceship shines his flashlight and waits for it to return. The light travels a certain distance (twice the distance of the mirror to the man) then returns in let's say for the sake of easy numbers: one second.

What does the man on Earth see? For him, the light has to travel a further distance than for the man on the spaceship. Because for the man on Earth, the light travels not only to and from the mirror, but also away from Earth while on the spaceship. If you picture the situation, it will look like the light if moving in a zig-zag. So the distance the light has to travel is further. Light always moves at the speed of light, which means it will take longer for the light to go back and forth for the man on Earth. He will record a time of (for the sake of easy numbers) 1.5 seconds.

The two men get back together and meet. They both started their watches at the same moment, they both stopped their watches at the same moment. Yet they disagree on the amount of time passed between these two moments. Surely, you say, one of them is wrong! One of their clocks must be broken! But no. They are both correct. Time is relative. Relative to where you are and what you're doing.

The amount of time difference between these clocks is called time dilation. But time dilation doesn't just happen for astronauts, no. Whenever something speeds up, time slows down for it relative to things moving slower. These effects however are in fact very very small until you start reaching speeds near the speed of light. But you can measure (indeed it is a homework problem I've had) to measure the amount of time you're younger by when taking a plane trip from LA to New York.

In some sense, this could be called time travel. Because when the astronaut returns to earth, more time will have passed for him than his friend on Earth. If you were to travel very fast, for an extended period, the time dilation can grow from half a second to thousands of years or more. But using this method, you can't go back in time. You'd be stuck once you got there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hope this helps. If anything is hard to understand, let me know.

 

[Deleted member]

AltF4Warrior, your last paragraph was a mind**** and a half. Let me try to grasp that with an example I saw in a movie.

Has anyone here seen Over the Hedge?

If you haven't, there's a part near the end where a squirrel goes into hyper-mode and moves so fast that everything is slow. Everyone stops moving because he went into bullet-time speed.

Is this the kind of thing that you're describing?

Man, what a lame example. Lame as in kids movie lame.

**** it, is bullet time in the Matrix similar to what you're talking about?

 

[AltF4]

Time will always appear to you to be traveling at a "normal rate". That is, you don't feel like you're moving in bullet time. But when you move at increasingly high speeds, less time will pass for you than for objects not moving at this speed. It will just appear that everything else is moving very fast.

The effects of this aren't really noticeable until you're at extremely high speeds, but it does in fact happen any time anything moves. If you wave your hands around for a moment, your hands are now a couple *extremely* small fractions of a second younger than the rest of your body. Neat, huh?

Time dilation also occurs in the presence of a gravitational field. In relativity, Gravity works by bending space. But space and time are not separate! They are one entity called space-time. Thus gravity also bends time. The stronger a gravitational field you are currently in, the slower time moves for you.

This has actually been measured in fact! Very precise atomic clocks have been placed on top and on bottom of tall towers. And after letting them go for a period of time, they always show a difference exactly as relativity predicts them to!

Now try to wrap your mind around this: Normal objects bend spacetime, but a black hole is an object with enough mass to cause a tear in it. What would happen if someone were to fall into a black hole? (Assuming he wouldn't be killed long before he got anywhere near it, which of course he would)

As the poor astronaut fell closer and closer to the black hole, time would gradually slow for him. Slower and slower. From the outside looking at him falling, it would seem like it's taking an eternity. In fact it would. You would never see him actually fall into the black hole, for all eternity he would just get gradually closer and closer. Screaming for dear life for all eternity. (Luckily in space, none can hear you scream)

 

[snex]

lots of other weird stuff happens as well...

if you and a friend are both traveling towards each other at high velocity, you will both claim that the other's time is going faster.

if you and a friend are both traveling towards each other at high velocity, you will not be able to agree on the order of events that happen elsewhere (except when one event directly causes another).

the faster you go, the longer and thinner you become, and the more mass you gain. think about what this would mean for a spaceship going into a station. a faster spaceship will be too long to fit from the perspective of the people on the station, but from the perspective of the people on the spaceship, it is the station that will look longer.

lest you think these are just theoretical and based on the math, they actually have practical applications. GPS devices would not work if these principals werent applied.

 

[Skylink]

The key thing here is what we are concluding from theese properties and facts of "time," if you say it exists. But as Kalypso said, if it's not a dimension the Einstien wasted a lot of time. (sorry, but it was really funny)

The existance of time can take take several different forms, for example it could be a dimension that is just percieved by us as causes and effects, it could be different fundamentally from spacial dimensions, or it could be different in different kinds of ways.

If you look at the world around you, cause and effect logic rules and defines our perception of time, and gives us a description simple enough for us to use this logic effectively. This logic, upfront, proves to us that the universe is in one state before the cause and effect, and when we kick our chairs over or whatever, then we know that things in our universe change, and we naturally assigign time as the medium through which the universe changes.

The possibility of time not existing is actually quite possible, because the cause and effect logic only confirms to us that there are sequenced events in the world. even with all of our knowledge and experiments on time and speed and black holes, the time we know and love could for all we know be a big board of rising numbers (think stock market) with numbers slowing down here or there in their acsent.

While, if thought from an abstract perspective, there is no real proof for or against any shape or form that time may take in the universe, so we may never know.

 

[blazedaces]

Take a look at this (I'll post the article at the end):

Eddington then gives three points to note about this arrow:

1. It is vividly recognized by consciousness.
2. It is equally insisted on by our reasoning faculty, which tells us that a reversal of the arrow would render the external world nonsensical.
3. It makes no appearance in physical science except in the study of organization of a number of individuals.

Here, according to Eddington, the arrow indicates the direction of progressive increase of the random element. Following a lengthy argument into the nature of thermodynamics, Eddington concludes that in so far as physics is concerned time's arrow is a property of entropy alone.

They go on to mention other arrows that coincide with time:
-The thermodynamic arrow of time (Entropy)
-The cosmological arrow of time (Expansion of the Universe)
-The radiative arrow of time (waves expand outward from a source)
-The causal arrow of time (What skylink mentioned above)
-The particle physics (weak) arrow of time
-The quantum arrow of time (wave function collapse)
-The psychological/perceptual arrow of time

Read about them in more detail HERE

 

[AltF4]

I find it peculiar then, that my physics teacher, who is an extremely qualified individual, questions time's existence - we even had a debate about it in class.

I just saw this. Your Physics teacher should be beaten. Or at least forced to take a college physics course.

Blazed: Some of those "arrows" of time are more credible than others, but it was an interesting read. It shows how other seemingly unrelated principles and laws require there to be a difference between past and future. And in order for past to be different than future, time must exist in a more tangible sense than some man made abstraction. I like it.

 

[Deleted member]

I just saw this. Your Physics teacher should be beaten. Or at least forced to take a college physics course.

He should be beaten for questioning his world around him?

I'm just gonna say this right out - have you ever heard of David Hume? (my favourite empiricist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

I don't exactly have a point here, but I find this quote ridiculous.

Via [Hume's] skeptical arguments (which became famous for the tenacity of their logic) he maintained that all knowledge, even the most basic beliefs about the natural world, cannot be conclusively established by reason. Rather, he maintained, our beliefs are more a result of accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences.

We are not born with a set of beliefs.

For example - if you were a baby and you saw a pig flying, you would not question it to the degree an adult would. Not nearly in fact. You'd probably think a flying pig would be quite commonplace.

So why is his questioning unjustifiable, again? You forgot to explain that.

 

[AltF4]

Yes, congratulations, nothing can, in principle, be ever proven. This is true. We can never say for sure that something is proven. But where do you stop with that kind of skepticism? Are you going to doubt the fact that there is a Moon? You could, using the same logic argue that we cannot prove the Moon exists conclusively. Because in principle, you can't ever prove anything!

At some point you have to accept that some things are true, without there being conclusive proof. Anyone who knows even the slightest bit about science knows that the Sun is the center of the solar system, not the Earth. Just like anyone who knows even a mediocre amount of physics knows that time is real, and that you can affect it in measurable ways.

Being a "skeptic" like David Hume does not make you profound or intelligent. Acknowledging that there is a possibility your beliefs might be wrong is a good thing. Refusing to accept others on the basis of universal doubt is ignorant.

 

[Deleted member]

Yes, congratulations, nothing can, in principle, be ever proven. This is true. We can never say for sure that something is proven. But where do you stop with that kind of skepticism? Are you going to doubt the fact that there is a Moon? You could, using the same logic argue that we cannot prove the Moon exists conclusively. Because in principle, you can't ever prove anything!

I can see the moon. For more proof that it exists, all I need to do is go there myself. But the reason I believe in it is because I can see it in the sky. I haven't seen a picture of it, which may have been doctored, nor just heard of it, to make me believe in its existence. It's visible.


Because I have empirical evidence, I can deduce that it more or less exists because I can see it.

I have never been to Japan, nor have I ever flown over it. I've seen pictures and I've heard things about it. But since I've never been myself, I can never really be too sure that it exists. But for the sake of just letting things be, I generally accept it to exist. For convenience purposes only.

At some point you have to accept that some things are true, without there being conclusive proof. Anyone who knows even the slightest bit about science knows that the Sun is the center of the solar system, not the Earth. Just like anyone who knows even a mediocre amount of physics knows that time is real, and that you can affect it in measurable ways.

Well, no, in fact, you don't have to accept that. This is an absurd claim. Perhaps you should rephrase that. Here's something I go by:

For convenience, I may as well accept that somethings are probable. Completely eliminating doubt is foolish and in hindsight always bites you in the ***.

And what are you talking about with your mediocre physics? I know enough to relatively understand concepts like velocity and acceleration and the like, but grade 11 physics (which is surely enough to pass for mediocre) did not touch down on the basis of time and time manipulation. The only time you see in low level physics is in equations, which isn't time (in the sense that we are talking about) at all really, it's duration. It's generally an arbitrary value.

Example: Jenny throws a ball and it lands 50 feet ahead 10 seconds later. What is the average velocity?

Being a "skeptic" like David Hume does not make you profound or intelligent. Acknowledging that there is a possibility your beliefs might be wrong is a good thing. Refusing to accept others on the basis of universal doubt is ignorant.

Being a skeptic does not make you profound or intelligent inherently, but why deny that which we do not know definitely? You just stated that my belief and reasoning system is a good thing. I do not go by the latter of your last statement. That is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand and letting things pass you by.

If I am the only one in this hall who questions everything, the rest of you simply aren't thinking.

I do not have universal doubt, although in retrospect I probably should. Just because I've seen only black crows..does that mean a white crow doesn't exist?

By saying that doubting everything gets you nowhere, then get out of this debate hall. It's offensive and is absolutely moronic. It's also contradictory too. Debating current events and topics that have no answers get you nowhere either. then. Especially on an online forum dedicated to a video game which does not relate at all to debating.

Why are there so many God threads if no theories can be proved? Why do the atheists give the theists time of day in a thread while you physicists will have none of what I'm proposing?

 

[AltF4]

11th grade physics is hardly mediocre. More like fledgling. Once you've started taking university level, calculus based, physics you'll learn that everything you've learned up until that point was a lie. Your example about the girl throwing a ball, and calculating the average velocity is a great example. I'm sure in class you solved a problem like this using a nice easy formula. Well, what they didn't tell you in high school was that Newton and his equations are wrong. Not a bad approximation, but fundamentally wrong. Your teacher that told you it was true lied to you. Sorry to break the news.

If you don't wish to believe this, then, well that's your choice. It's not a matter of debate really. You asked a question "Does time really exist?" and I (and others, who have done so very well) answered it. If you think you know better than EVERY scientist and engineer on the planet, go ahead.

Besides, did you read my long explanation on how time dilation works? The light box experiment? It's pretty conclusive right there.

Oh, also. universal doubt does get you nowhere. It is intellectually healthy to be skeptical of ideas. The word skeptical there used in the colloquial sense of just meaning "not buying into it immediately". But you have to choose to believe at some point, without there being proof. Because there's no such thing as proof. Are you familiar with Renee Descartes' Universal Doubt? Once you give in to that level of doubt, you can't get out. There is no such thing as a universal truth.

 

[blazedaces]

There is no such thing as a universal truth.

Just to be nitpicky I would like to point out the philosophical dilemma with the statement "There is no such thing as a universal truth" because that is in fact a "universal truth" and that is why it's a false statement, to state otherwise would be stating a paradox or a contradictory statement.

Just throwing a little bit of Plato in there to soften the mood

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Hahaha, quite right. I guess I should have said something more along the lines of "there is no a priori knowledge upon which we can build the rest of our beliefs" in a manner that Descartes tried.

Even the existence of a priori knowledge at all could be debated. People have been arguing about "Cogito ergo sum" for ages.

But all this talk about the nature of knowledge has gotten me interested. I think I'll post a new thread soon. Should be real fun.

 

[Delphiki]

Did anyone read my old post? I'm going to do a bit of cut and paste. Keep in mind this is all Kantian.


This is the basic premise, of Immanuel Kant, of time -

Time is neither a dimension nor a thing in itself. It is instead a process of the understanding which creates the possibility of the mind to know cause and effect. Therefore without time (as part of the understanding) we would not be able to know of change or of any state of affairs besides the one we are in now, and no physical or mental changes would be possible, because the mind could not comprehend a 'before' and 'after' status.

Therefore time does not exist anymore than logic - things are only logical because we apply supposed logical systems to them. Logic and time are both dogmatic.

Also, some of you seem to be confusing cause and effect. Cause and effect does not necessitate time, except as a faculty of the understanding.

Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for more.

---------------------------

As the poor astronaut fell closer and closer to the black hole, time would gradually slow for him. Slower and slower. From the outside looking at him falling, it would seem like it's taking an eternity. In fact it would. You would never see him actually fall into the black hole, for all eternity he would just get gradually closer and closer. Screaming for dear life for all eternity.

I'm a bit confused about all this. Assuming the man didn't die, nor the onlookers, how would he never enter the black hole?

I find all theories which relate speed, mass, and time untrustworthy. What should I read that gives the best possible explanation of them? And I don't mean an online article, I want substance.

 

[AltF4]

Source to Read: A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking. Great read, easy to comprehend. Or for a more full understanding : Any Physics book that says "Modern Physics" on it.

About Kant: Very poetic... but wrong. Did you read the lightbox experiment that I posted? That pretty much shows you how time can be distorted. (last page, post #19. Sandwiched between some dashes)

About the black hole: I never really gave a "proof" that black holes work like that. I just kinda said they do. The proof is really involved, not nearly as straight forward as the lightbox experiment. It involves showing that a gravitational field being under a constant acceleration are equivalent.

Anywho, you have to realize that time is relative. Relative to who is watching the situation. Very different things can happen simply depending on your point of view! From the point of view of the onlooker on the spaceship, the astronaut will never reach the black hole. He will keep moving slower and slower indefinitely. But from the point of view of the astronaut, he will be moving at a perfectly normal rate, and everything else will speed up.

It is important to note that these effects are not illusions! Do not think of it as "it appears to the onlooker that the astronaut slows down". Time really is slowing down for him.

 

[Delphiki]

Hrmmm.... I agree that light's speed is constant (raises the question: Is light a physical thing?)

I still don't understand the process of dilation, even though I see the proof of it. I wouldn't argue for or against something without knowing why. You can try to explain if you think you can, but I'm going to read Hawking. I'll bump the thread when I'm done.

 

[AltF4]

Light is not a physical thing. Before the 20th century, there was a long debate amongst scientists about what light was: A particle (essentially a tiny ball) or a Wave (just like waves in water).

Isaac Newton believed that light was a particle, and described it in all of his writings as such. But others weren't convinced. The problem was that sometimes light seemed to behave just like a particle, but other times a wave. Almost as if it couldn't make up it's mind.

For a good read, and an explanation of why the answer is what it is, look up: The Double Slit Experiment

The truth wound up being that light is neither a particle, nor a wave. Light is light. Sometimes it exhibits properties similar to what we refer to as a "particle" and other times a "wave". But it is not one or the other exclusively.

What light is can be only properly described mathematically, any attempts to rationalize "well what IS it?!" are going to be inherently flawed, because we're trying to assert one of our preconceived notions of objects on to something entirely foreign. Light is not obligated to obey the rules of what we would consider to be "normal". It is only obligated to obey the rules of mathematics, which it does.

 

[blazedaces]

Light is not a physical thing. Before the 20th century, there was a long debate amongst scientists about what light was: A particle (essentially a tiny ball) or a Wave (just like waves in water).

Isaac Newton believed that light was a particle, and described it in all of his writings as such. But others weren't convinced. The problem was that sometimes light seemed to behave just like a particle, but other times a wave. Almost as if it couldn't make up it's mind.

For a good read, and an explanation of why the answer is what it is, look up: The Double Slit Experiment

The truth wound up being that light is neither a particle, nor a wave. Light is light. Sometimes it exhibits properties similar to what we refer to as a "particle" and other times a "wave". But it is not one or the other exclusively.

What light is can be only properly described mathematically, any attempts to rationalize "well what IS it?!" are going to be inherently flawed, because we're trying to assert one of our preconceived notions of objects on to something entirely foreign. Light is not obligated to obey the rules of what we would consider to be "normal". It is only obligated to obey the rules of mathematics, which it does.

I think you're trying to insinuate that only light contains the wave/particle duality you describe, but this is certainly not the case. All (yes, that's right, ALL) particles sometimes act as waves and sometimes as particles.

We can see this effect in electrons and other small particles, but this duality starts to be almost unnoticeable as an object's mass increases so obviously we can't view this effect in macro-sized objects.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Yes, true. Just didn't want to bring that up. It's hard enough to grasp the concept for light.