I don't expect you would, and noticing the rest of the monumental stuff up re the BB you have made in the rest of your post, I'm not really interested in educating you.
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
Time is real because tasks that have a beginning and an end have a duration. If time were not real there would be no reason why babies would not be immediate consequences or indefinitely postponed consequences of sexual unions. If time were not real there would be no reason not to market day planners to the deceased. If time were not real there would be no reason to get consent for medical procedures during times when patients are stressed by vexing bullet wounds.
More concretely, every finite path of existence possible to be occupied by a small material body can be assigned a proper durations in a way that changes smoothly with changes in position and path and entirely consistently with that measured by the most precise clocks. So the simplistic prediction that clocks measure elapsed "time" is entirely consistent with a self-consistent theory of space-time geometry.
However, this geometric time of finite paths is a quite different notion than the absolute time of Newton's conception. That older view of time does not share the same empirical support. So it is important to define one's terms. If one can't even define what one is talking about, what chance does one to understand another?
Having established that time is real, but particular to a choice of location and state of motion, we may establish that the best clocks are those that give the most parsimonious measurement of elapsed time. That is, a good clock makes local physics seem simple. Study of the goodness of clocks is a technical branch of metrology. Being a technical branch, it has its own special vocabulary to ensure that everyone's talking about the same thing. And having established that they are talking about the same thing, their concepts of what it means to calibrate a clock are fundamentally interconnected to a system of cross checks.
Figure A.7 — Concept diagram for part of Clause 2 around ‘calibration’ from page 69 of JCGM 200:2012 International vocabulary of metrology - Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIPM)
It's not an intractable chicken-and-egg situation, but a historical stepwise gradual refinement of the concept of what it is to measure a quantity and the precision at which we can reproduce such results. And such refinements are possible only because of the behavior of time (in the geometrical, associated with a particular path in space-time sense) of acting like a real thing.
More concretely, every finite path of existence possible to be occupied by a small material body can be assigned a proper durations in a way that changes smoothly with changes in position and path and entirely consistently with that measured by the most precise clocks. So the simplistic prediction that clocks measure elapsed "time" is entirely consistent with a self-consistent theory of space-time geometry.
However, this geometric time of finite paths is a quite different notion than the absolute time of Newton's conception. That older view of time does not share the same empirical support. So it is important to define one's terms. If one can't even define what one is talking about, what chance does one to understand another?
Having established that time is real, but particular to a choice of location and state of motion, we may establish that the best clocks are those that give the most parsimonious measurement of elapsed time. That is, a good clock makes local physics seem simple. Study of the goodness of clocks is a technical branch of metrology. Being a technical branch, it has its own special vocabulary to ensure that everyone's talking about the same thing. And having established that they are talking about the same thing, their concepts of what it means to calibrate a clock are fundamentally interconnected to a system of cross checks.
Figure A.7 — Concept diagram for part of Clause 2 around ‘calibration’ from page 69 of JCGM 200:2012 International vocabulary of metrology - Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIPM)
It's not an intractable chicken-and-egg situation, but a historical stepwise gradual refinement of the concept of what it is to measure a quantity and the precision at which we can reproduce such results. And such refinements are possible only because of the behavior of time (in the geometrical, associated with a particular path in space-time sense) of acting like a real thing.
Last edited:
AH no , nothing new here just the same old definition of time .
Time then is really a metaphysical concept .
You haven't shown that " time " has any material substance .
2 cents worth coming in
Just did a quick brush up on my views.
It appears many scientist in this field are starting to think time does not exist.
I don't think time exist outside of our lay understanding.
What the lay person thinks of as time is a measurement of change. The item was there now it is over there. The time between the two positions is marked by arbitrary units.
I'll try and explain by this long winded method my position.
Consider taking a photo.
One photo is called a snapshot in time. Slight misnomer since the photo being taken takes (just for discussion sake) 0.5 of a second << (using lay understanding of time here).
Consider now taking a movie.
Taking a series of photos and showing the images at a certain rate gives the illusion of smooth movement due to the eyes property of persistence of vision.
But wait.
Look at the film (the physical material). The series of photos have small spaces/gaps/frame edges between each still shot.
This leads to strange effects like car wheels, propellers and other items making repetitive movements appear to stop and even reverse (stroboscopic effect).
But we don't see that effect in reality.
Here is why. I think.
Takes a deep breath and plunges in.
The past does not exist.
Only NOW exist.
The future does not exist.
Only NOW exist.
Problem is NOW cannot be split between past and future.
No matter how fast you take the still photos for a movie you always have gaps between the frames.
Am sure the equivalent occurs with movies stored, say on a digital hard drive, but what form the equivalent of a space between frames takes I have no idea.
Anybody know how to produce a movie that shows the smoothness of real life?
What does the image look like on the physical material?
Note please this is my first post under my Humpty Dumpty approach.
Just did a quick brush up on my views.
It appears many scientist in this field are starting to think time does not exist.
I don't think time exist outside of our lay understanding.
What the lay person thinks of as time is a measurement of change. The item was there now it is over there. The time between the two positions is marked by arbitrary units.
I'll try and explain by this long winded method my position.
Consider taking a photo.
One photo is called a snapshot in time. Slight misnomer since the photo being taken takes (just for discussion sake) 0.5 of a second << (using lay understanding of time here).
Consider now taking a movie.
Taking a series of photos and showing the images at a certain rate gives the illusion of smooth movement due to the eyes property of persistence of vision.
But wait.
Look at the film (the physical material). The series of photos have small spaces/gaps/frame edges between each still shot.
This leads to strange effects like car wheels, propellers and other items making repetitive movements appear to stop and even reverse (stroboscopic effect).
But we don't see that effect in reality.
Here is why. I think.
Takes a deep breath and plunges in.
The past does not exist.
Only NOW exist.
The future does not exist.
Only NOW exist.
Problem is NOW cannot be split between past and future.
No matter how fast you take the still photos for a movie you always have gaps between the frames.
Am sure the equivalent occurs with movies stored, say on a digital hard drive, but what form the equivalent of a space between frames takes I have no idea.
Anybody know how to produce a movie that shows the smoothness of real life?
What does the image look like on the physical material?
Note please this is my first post under my Humpty Dumpty approach.
Last edited:
Since no model of physics assumes you really can "save time in a bottle" as in the Jim Croce song, then your choice of definition has no connection with reality, which is odd for someone who wants to discuss a topic of existence.
As I described, it's an objective metrological concept. Thus it's a concept used by people who accomplish real things of interest.
This link from post #4 says as much. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...everyone-should-know-about-time/#.WE-nqneZNE6
So time then has no material substance to it .
I get the practical time thing . It is necessary to order our lives on Earth . flights from Toronto to India etc.
But as far as time matters beyond our planet , into the Universe ; not at all .
Not as the term "material substance" is used in the fields of chemistry and physics, although the description of the behaviors of phenomena described by both physics and chemistry include time. That's why time can never be considered metaphysical. Physics describes things in terms of time and time in terms of things.
I never suggested the word "practical" — time is not practical. Choices get to be made only one time in this impractical world and not revisited in light of their consequences.
That's an assertion, a naked claim without empirical support or in this case even hope of empirical support. Our observation of GW150914 indicates that our understanding of time appears to be valid over a billion light years away as the timing of gravitational inspirals was calculated to have exactly the time dependence of the received signal.
You continually seem to be confused river, or is it something else?
I have made a point to say that time is not a physical thing, so it is not any material substance either....can you understand that?
Are magnetic fields real? Or space real?
Time is relative as I have also said.
Spacetime can be bent warped and twisted also.........
referring back to post 4 mentioned by rpenner....
Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time:
By Sean Carroll
1. Time exists.
2. The past and future are equally real.
3. Everyone experiences time differently.
4. You live in the past.
5. Your memory isn’t as good as you think.
6. Consciousness depends on manipulating time.
7. Disorder increases as time passes.
8. Complexity comes and goes.
9. Aging can be reversed.
10. A lifespan is a billion heartbeats.
Some important extracts from Carroll's extended explanations:
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms. When it comes to whether time is fundamental, the answer is: nobody knows. My bet is “yes,” but we’ll need to understand quantum gravity much better before we can say for sure.
[9] Reversing the arrow of time for living organisms is a technological challenge, not a physical impossibility. And we’re making progress on a few fronts: stem cells,yeast, and even (with caveats) mice and human muscle tissue. As one biologist told me: “You and I won’t live forever. But as for our grandkids, I’m not placing any bets.”
[10] about one and a half billion, if you simply must be precise. In that very real sense, all animal species experience “the same amount of time.” At least, until we master #9 and become immortal.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...everyone-should-know-about-time/#.VgiJmeyqqkp
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Funny, you also re-awoke this thread at post 291 and said
Now it has been pointed out to you, and as illustrated again from post 4 above, that Professor Carroll certainly does view time as real.
More confusion obviously on your part.
The only redeeming feature for yourself is this is in the alternative section.
The past WAS real.
The future has YET to be real.
NOW is the only real in existence
[9] Reversing the arrow of time...
There is no arrow of time
Humpty Dumpty approach
Last edited:
You continually seem to be confused river, or is it something else?
I have made a point to say that time is not a physical thing, so it is not any material substance either....can you understand that?
Are magnetic fields real? Or space real?
Time is relative as I have also said.
Spacetime can be bent warped and twisted also.........
referring back to post 4 mentioned by rpenner....
Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time:
By Sean Carroll
1. Time exists.
2. The past and future are equally real.
3. Everyone experiences time differently.
4. You live in the past.
5. Your memory isn’t as good as you think.
6. Consciousness depends on manipulating time.
7. Disorder increases as time passes.
8. Complexity comes and goes.
9. Aging can be reversed.
10. A lifespan is a billion heartbeats.
Some important extracts from Carroll's extended explanations:
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms. When it comes to whether time is fundamental, the answer is: nobody knows. My bet is “yes,” but we’ll need to understand quantum gravity much better before we can say for sure.
[9] Reversing the arrow of time for living organisms is a technological challenge, not a physical impossibility. And we’re making progress on a few fronts: stem cells,yeast, and even (with caveats) mice and human muscle tissue. As one biologist told me: “You and I won’t live forever. But as for our grandkids, I’m not placing any bets.”
[10] about one and a half billion, if you simply must be precise. In that very real sense, all animal species experience “the same amount of time.” At least, until we master #9 and become immortal.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...everyone-should-know-about-time/#.VgiJmeyqqkp
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Funny, you also re-awoke this thread at post 291 and said
Now it has been pointed out to you, and as illustrated again from post 4 above, that Professor Carroll certainly does view time as real.
More confusion obviously on your part.
The only redeeming feature for yourself is this is in the alternative section.
Write4U said: ↑
I like Paddo's post of Sean Carroll;
[1]The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms
Question on whether time is fundamental or not, so?
Carroll explicitly states time is real. Again, you seem confused on that point.
Please note river: Max Tegmark says "time is real: Its the flow of time that maybe an illusion"
Max is not only confused but unsure about what he is saying .
Some do certainly, but U believe the overwhelming picture is as per Carroll.
[Watch the Max Tegmark video.
And depending on ones FoR, both measurements of space and time can be different for different people.
Time began at the BB or the start of the evolution of spacetime. So again as I said to river, if there was no time, then the BB would not have banged so to speak.
Did you say or remark on the arrow of time?
That is simply a method of illustrating the "one-way direction" or "asymmetry" of time.
Here's some more food for thought........
Einsteins GR predicted a dynamic universe [expanding] The thoughts of that time were the universe was static: Einstein then implemented his greatest blunder, the CC to GR, to bring about a static universe. Time would still have existed though.
As Tegmark said near the end of his video, there is still much we don't know about time.
No . he made no sense pad .
But you did not understand what Carroll said either.
Only NOW exist.
Not sure if NOW qualifies as time.
Time (lay persons understanding - and mine as a member of the lay) does not flow.
Humpty Dumpty approach
You are in alternative section river, so you can imagine what you will.
So can you .
You really didn't think about Max's answer did you ?
- Status